FastBun
Member
let him keep thinking otherwise… these guys home brew a little gear and think they are chemist… have no knowledge on how these operations actually work…
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Readalots Enhanced Testing
- Thread starter Dirthand
- Start date
Who said I’ve never brewed? I just don’t post 2,000 -6,000 times in a years time and very loud about everything like you Reddit crossover guys.
Actually if you hit up a UGL and ask them for a bit of knowledge they will tell you to be careful with your electric usage. I’m not sure why you are so combative and knuckle-headed about this. You are a small home brewer so of course you have nothing to worry about but I don’t think you realize how much these UGLs are manufacturing and selling which takes a lot of equipment running daily.
This will be the dumbest thing I read today. Let me get this straight, so because marijuana is legal in some states LE doesn’t care to investigate and bust growers in illegal states? Oh brother I’m done here. FYI… even in the legal states one is only permitted to grow a few plants. Basically a grow tents worth which doesn’t use a lot of electricity btw.
Seriously tho.. I’m done out of respect for what this thread is about. If you want to continue in a civil manner tag me in a home brew thread bud.
Ateam2023
Well-known Member
i Iive in a rural California with 2 neighbors in a 5 mile radius, we been having the electric bill at $2.5 k at times for YEARS++++++ and our 25 head of pigs we farm arent causing that bill to be so high,,,, And we grow "flowers" year round smelly, smelly flowers
I’ve had some time to ponder on what transpired here today. I told @readalot in another thread but feel it needs said here as well. I was real quick to throw some shade with my “unnecessary testing” and “I told you so” at Readalot today. Although we may not all agree on Readlot’s tactics look what transpired today. The biggest distributor in the game went above and beyond today, which is mind blowing if you were here to witness their first year here. Today the community got a big win and I apologize for being a bit negative about it.
We may never actually see a concerning enhanced testing report but this is a harm reduction forum and all testing should be welcomed.
@readalot thanks bud. @Qingdao Sigma Chemicals you’ll always be public enemy #1 to me but thank you for the testing.
We may never actually see a concerning enhanced testing report but this is a harm reduction forum and all testing should be welcomed.
@readalot thanks bud. @Qingdao Sigma Chemicals you’ll always be public enemy #1 to me but thank you for the testing.
readalot
Member
Thank you for taking the time to share this. I sincerely appreciate it.
To address the part in bold (in your quote above) I've asked Janoshik about the failure rates on endotoxins and "sterility" testing (reader can find link below). If there are enhanced testing failures it would be helpful to report them in aggregate (absolute numbers and relative percentage) as part of community surveillance. I'd appreciate that @janoshik. Perhaps a quarterly update using anonymized aggregate reporting?
Thank you for considering as we (I use that word with intention and hope) as a community try to shine the surveillance light (QC light, not the po-po) on the UGL space.
Happy New Year and Take Care!
Last edited:
Yeah, now I can see all the cat pee on the couch.
Yucky
TLDR; @readalot is fucking badass
On a forum dedicated to AAS harm reduction, @readalot almost single-handedly pressured, annoyed, harassed, AND SUCCEEDED in getting multiple sources to spend thousands of dollars on analytical testing of AAS products that they most surely would not have otherwise done. This was at significant personal cost and steadfast persistence for over a year.
That deserves respect. It's still mind-boggling that so many "harm reduction" advocates have been resistant, adversarial, and mocking of his efforts to pursue an agenda to get sources to perform more testing.
Holding sources accountable for what is in their products is one of the most on-point agendas in harm reduction.
But for those who disagree, carry on with the idea of using bad words and name-calling as the pinnacle behaviors for source accountability and user harm reduction. Pat yourself on the back.
On a forum dedicated to AAS harm reduction, @readalot almost single-handedly pressured, annoyed, harassed, AND SUCCEEDED in getting multiple sources to spend thousands of dollars on analytical testing of AAS products that they most surely would not have otherwise done. This was at significant personal cost and steadfast persistence for over a year.
That deserves respect. It's still mind-boggling that so many "harm reduction" advocates have been resistant, adversarial, and mocking of his efforts to pursue an agenda to get sources to perform more testing.
Holding sources accountable for what is in their products is one of the most on-point agendas in harm reduction.
But for those who disagree, carry on with the idea of using bad words and name-calling as the pinnacle behaviors for source accountability and user harm reduction. Pat yourself on the back.
janoshik
Subscriber
Happy New Year!To address the part in bold (in your quote above) I've asked Janoshik about the failure rates on endotoxins and "sterility" testing (reader can find link below). If there are enhanced testing failures it would be helpful to report them in aggregate (absolute numbers and relative percentage) as part of community surveillance. I'd appreciate that @janoshik. Perhaps a quarterly update using anonymized aggregate reporting?
Thank you for considering as we (I use that word with intention and hope) as a community try to shine the surveillance light (QC light, not the po-po) on the UGL space.
Happy New Year and Take Care!
Sure. Given the current rates I'd expect a whole lot more data to go by at the end of 1Q 2025.
Excel.exe
Member
somehow a new ugl by the name of "brewalot" showed up which would test every batch for everything.
nightprowler7
Well-known Member
And as everyone told him, Everything he suggested being tested for was a non-issue, not a single test came back positive for anything across multiple vendors, forums, and individual tests. Even by a vendor who was filling his vials in the open air with not even a still air box came back clean! Kinda crazy.
Excel.exe
Member
who?
nightprowler7
Well-known Member
Neo
Something that was referenced in this thread and/or related threads regarding @readalot's enhanced testing is the extra costs that consumers would pay if enhanced testing became a thing.
This was an interesting discussion of course but what interested me the most is someone alluding to the fact that it would be an undue burden on smaller UGLs.
This really struct me for several reasons. For one, it is people saying the silent part out loud when it comes to the resistance for additional testing.
Smaller sources/UGLs would stand to lose the most due to economies of scale. So it would clearly be in their best interest if this never came to pass.
At this point in the AAS marketplace, the barriers to entry for AAS dealers and sources have never been lower. The wide availability of inexpensive raws have always helped. But the extremely cheap vials of (semi)finished Chinese products have made it possibly for literally anyone to slap on a label and become a "UGL" source.
And they have. We probably have the largest number of "steroid dealers" at varying levels of participation than at any point in history. By "steroid dealers", I mean those who resell illegal AAS products for a profit, publicly or privately, online or offline, for 100s or 1000s.
The practically non-existent barriers to entry mean a lot of people are profiting even if it is mostly on a small-scale.
So, when more and more analytical testing, which is relatively expensive, increasingly becomes a standard operating procedure in this marketplace, the smaller players will struggle more.
The irony is that the most well-funded and profitable sources with the largest market share who can best absorb the costs of additional testing have the least incentive to do more testing or anything for that matter when it comes to harm reduction for consumers.
The big sources already have market share. So, it usually falls on the up and coming small sources trying to differentiate themselves to take on the mantle of harm reduction initiatives arising from groundswell of consumer pressure.
This is what happened 10 years with the advent of widespread qualitative/quantitative testing.,,
A few smaller sources took it upon themselves to do this - and while clearly a marketing effort on their part - and they expanded to grab a bigger piece of the pie.
Eventually, the larger more established sources saw this and ultimately did more testing too. But not before the smaller early adopters gained a permanent foothold.
I thought maybe this pattern would repeat again in 2025. But maybe not. Maybe instead of groundswell from bottom up consumer pressure, it will come from top-down market pressures. It's too early to tell.
I just know many small sources along with their supporters will continue to resist and hope it doesn't come to pass.
So, to the question of it being an undue burden on small sources. Yes, it is. The pressure for additional testing is clearly a favorable trend for larger, better-funded sources. The larger sources could easily absorb the additional costs without a significant increase in consumer price.
I guess we could debate whether this is good or bad for the marketplace.
Are the ridiculously low barriers to entry something that are worth maintaining? How low/high should they be? And importantly, what are the motives of those fighting to maintain those low barriers to entry? And those wanting to raise the barriers to entry?
This was an interesting discussion of course but what interested me the most is someone alluding to the fact that it would be an undue burden on smaller UGLs.
This really struct me for several reasons. For one, it is people saying the silent part out loud when it comes to the resistance for additional testing.
Smaller sources/UGLs would stand to lose the most due to economies of scale. So it would clearly be in their best interest if this never came to pass.
At this point in the AAS marketplace, the barriers to entry for AAS dealers and sources have never been lower. The wide availability of inexpensive raws have always helped. But the extremely cheap vials of (semi)finished Chinese products have made it possibly for literally anyone to slap on a label and become a "UGL" source.
And they have. We probably have the largest number of "steroid dealers" at varying levels of participation than at any point in history. By "steroid dealers", I mean those who resell illegal AAS products for a profit, publicly or privately, online or offline, for 100s or 1000s.
The practically non-existent barriers to entry mean a lot of people are profiting even if it is mostly on a small-scale.
So, when more and more analytical testing, which is relatively expensive, increasingly becomes a standard operating procedure in this marketplace, the smaller players will struggle more.
The irony is that the most well-funded and profitable sources with the largest market share who can best absorb the costs of additional testing have the least incentive to do more testing or anything for that matter when it comes to harm reduction for consumers.
The big sources already have market share. So, it usually falls on the up and coming small sources trying to differentiate themselves to take on the mantle of harm reduction initiatives arising from groundswell of consumer pressure.
This is what happened 10 years with the advent of widespread qualitative/quantitative testing.,,
A few smaller sources took it upon themselves to do this - and while clearly a marketing effort on their part - and they expanded to grab a bigger piece of the pie.
Eventually, the larger more established sources saw this and ultimately did more testing too. But not before the smaller early adopters gained a permanent foothold.
I thought maybe this pattern would repeat again in 2025. But maybe not. Maybe instead of groundswell from bottom up consumer pressure, it will come from top-down market pressures. It's too early to tell.
I just know many small sources along with their supporters will continue to resist and hope it doesn't come to pass.
So, to the question of it being an undue burden on small sources. Yes, it is. The pressure for additional testing is clearly a favorable trend for larger, better-funded sources. The larger sources could easily absorb the additional costs without a significant increase in consumer price.
I guess we could debate whether this is good or bad for the marketplace.
Are the ridiculously low barriers to entry something that are worth maintaining? How low/high should they be? And importantly, what are the motives of those fighting to maintain those low barriers to entry? And those wanting to raise the barriers to entry?
Kinda crazy that this is even an argument for not doing additional analytical testing.
There are numerous sources who have consistently for the past year or so had practically all of their products tested within 5% variance and even when they didn't they were with 5-10%.
So does that mean this is a non-issue and unnecessary as well. By your logic, it does.
Underdosed products aren't a significant problem.
Microbiologically contaminated products aren't a significant problem.
Heavy metals are not a significant problem.
Endotoxins are not a significant problem.
So hey, testing is wasteful and unnecessary. Let's don't do it. LOL.
That's just not true.
Constant surveillance is necessary.
curveball2025
New Member
Would it be reasonable for "paid" vendors to be required to do the same testing? In the spirit of what was accomplished, it would be a strong message of support. @Millard
bigMoJo
Member
Hey bro,
The answer you're looking for is in the link below—it's a good question, but essentially answered in one of today's posts...
curveball2025
New Member
Respectfully, I don't believe that answers the question. @Millard , I believe, has the power to place any requirements he wants on the "paid" sources. The sources can then decide if they want to comply and continue as a "paid" source. It would be a strong message to all.Hey bro,
The answer you're looking for is in the link below—it's a good question, but essentially answered in one of today's posts...
readalot
Member
How 'bout the people place the requirements? Moment of truth? Like water dripping on the boulder. It's here.
