MESO-Rx

Anabolic Steroids

Sciroxx Labs Testodex Enanthate 250 - GC-MS/MS - 2016-01 - performed by ChemTox via AnabolicLab.com

just checked Karls website, nowhere does is say there is anything else in his test e. so much for public knowledge
 
rpbb said:
just checked Karls website, nowhere does is say there is anything else in his test e. so much for public knowledge
Click to expand...

As usual you are missing my point and not understanding what I am saying. I agree with you 110% that it is wrong to mislabel the vials contents intentionally; if in fact that is what occurred. However, that issue is not what the debate is about. The debate is about whether or not it was known prior to testing by Millard that the contents should actually have been 200mg tests e and 70 mg test phenylprop and whether or not that is what was actually tested for by Chemtox. I am simply stating that based on the evidence that was originally presented, which included emails from the owner of Chemtox; it appeared as if there was a breakdown of communication somewhere and that the sample was only tested for test e. Thats it, nothing more!! I am not defending Karl, I am not defending the lab, nor am I defending Millard. I am simply defending GI Bro and the conclusions that he drew based on the evidence that was present at that time since I drew similar conclusions. Anything more that you want to read into it or speculate is merely that as I have already stated my opinion twice now on how I feel about things if they were in fact intentionally mislabeled.
 
muscle96ss said:
As usual you are missing my point and not understanding what I am saying. I agree with you 110% that it is wrong to mislabel the vials contents intentionally; if in fact that is what occurred. However, that issue is not what the debate is about. The debate is about whether or not it was known prior to testing by Millard that the contents should actually have been 200mg tests e and 70 mg test phenylprop and whether or not that is what was actually tested for by Chemtox. I am simply stating that based on the evidence that was originally presented, which included emails from the owner of Chemtox; it appeared as if there was a breakdown of communication somewhere and that the sample was only tested for test e. Thats it, nothing more!! I am not defending Karl, I am not defending the lab, nor am I defending Millard. I am simply defending GI Bro and the conclusions that he drew based on the evidence that was present at that time since I drew similar conclusions. Anything more that you want to read into it or speculate is merely that as I have already stated my opinion twice now on how I feel about things if they were in fact intentionally mislabeled.
Click to expand...
I don't believe that I am missing your point at all. Whether millard knew that it was adulterated or not, the lab should only be responsible for testing what is on the label, and what is clearly stated on karls own website. I'm still mystified as to why GI jumped into the argument
 
muscle96ss said:
As usual you are missing my point and not understanding what I am saying. I agree with you 110% that it is wrong to mislabel the vials contents intentionally; if in fact that is what occurred. However, that issue is not what the debate is about. The debate is about whether or not it was known prior to testing by Millard that the contents should actually have been 200mg tests e and 70 mg test phenylprop and whether or not that is what was actually tested for by Chemtox. I am simply stating that based on the evidence that was originally presented, which included emails from the owner of Chemtox; it appeared as if there was a breakdown of communication somewhere and that the sample was only tested for test e. Thats it, nothing more!! I am not defending Karl, I am not defending the lab, nor am I defending Millard. I am simply defending GI Bro and the conclusions that he drew based on the evidence that was present at that time since I drew similar conclusions. Anything more that you want to read into it or speculate is merely that as I have already stated my opinion twice now on how I feel about things if they were in fact intentionally mislabeled.
Click to expand...

No, this is not what the debate is about. Why should it have been known, I'll take it a step further and say why should it even have been questioned, that there was 200mg test e and 70mg TPP in the sample when the vial's label listed 250mg of test e only. He even listed out the excipients on the label and nowhere is TPP to be found. As RPBB pointed out, neither was it displayed anywhere on the website. How can either of you question that is beyond any reasonable conclusion.

Another fact is that the PDF file from Millard explicitly states the other compounds tested for which include TPP anyway. NONE WAS FOUND. The email from the doctor said if test e is asked to be tested for than only test e is tested for. Millard asked for all the other compounds to be tested for and that's explicitly stated unlike Karl's mysterious tpp which isn't stated anywhere.

So not only is the quality of the oil in question bc of lackluster quantitative testing but now you two have now opened the door to question Karl's motives as well. If you guys hadn't have said anything one could think it possible that he was at the mercy of his raw supplier and simply didn't test that batch. Now we should dismiss that thought bc you're saying the difference between what's listed on the label and what was found in testing concentration wise is made up for with TPP which wasn't tested for. Well it was. It wasn't found. Case fucking closed.
 
rpbb said:
I don't believe that I am missing your point at all. Whether millard knew that it was adulterated or not, the lab should only be responsible for testing what is on the label, and what is clearly stated on karls own website. I'm still mystified as to why GI jumped into the argument
Click to expand...

I work with plenty of alzheimers and dementia patients, but I think they can understand things better than some of you here. It was claimed that Millard was made aware PRIOR to the testing that the item he was testing contained 200mg of test e and 70mg of test phenylprop and to make sure that test phenylprop was tested for and was told that this would occur(I am not justifying who, what, where, or why the vial contained what it contained, get that through your head!). Therefore, if that is in fact true as claimed, then to say that the lab is only responsible for testing what is on the label is completely irresponsible. If the lab was told that the sample contained 200mg of test e and 70mg of test phenylprop and then ignored that information and only tested for test e; then for you to say that the lab did things correctly is wrong. So I understand your point, but you are missing our point of what was claimed and the evidence that was presented to support that claim. That is all we are talking about here.
 
Docd187123 said:
No, this is not what the debate is about. Why should it have been known, I'll take it a step further and say why should it even have been questioned, that there was 200mg test e and 70mg TPP in the sample when the vial's label listed 250mg of test e only. He even listed out the excipients on the label and nowhere is TPP to be found. As RPBB pointed out, neither was it displayed anywhere on the website. How can either of you question that is beyond any reasonable conclusion.

Another fact is that the PDF file from Millard explicitly states the other compounds tested for which include TPP anyway. NONE WAS FOUND. The email from the doctor said if test e is asked to be tested for than only test e is tested for. Millard asked for all the other compounds to be tested for and that's explicitly stated unlike Karl's mysterious tpp which isn't stated anywhere.

So not only is the quality of the oil in question bc of lackluster quantitative testing but now you two have now opened the door to question Karl's motives as well. If you guys hadn't have said anything one could think it possible that he was at the mercy of his raw supplier and simply didn't test that batch. Now we should dismiss that thought bc you're saying the difference between what's listed on the label and what was found in testing concentration wise is made up for with TPP which wasn't tested for. Well it was. It wasn't found. Case fucking closed.
Click to expand...

You state, "why should it have been known?". It should have been known because it was supposedly portrayed to Millard prior to the testing and according to Karl, people were aware that the content of that batch was other than specified. I am going on the assumption that people are being truthful to me. Nowhere have I stated that this is fact, nor do I claim to know all the details involved.

Secondly, yes the PDF states, "none was found"; but the email directly from the owner of ChemTox states otherwise. Again, I am assuming that the owner of Chemtox is not lying and simply going on what was presented to me. I trust an email from the owner of the company, more than I trust a generic lab testing PDF from the company. Again, I am simply looking at the evidence that was present, realizing that some is contradictory and trying to make sense of it all.

So, I think you have misunderstood my post. I don't know how many times more I can type that I am not defending Karl, Chemtox, Millard, or anyone but GI Bro. He posted what he posted based on the evidence he was supplied and drew his conclusions based on the evidence supplied. The conclusions drawn were reasonable and logical based on the information available and he didn't deserve to be bashed in the way he was. That was the point of my post. My post has nothing to do with the details of how it came to be that this batch was made or what its actual contents is. I am simply stating that GI Bro is a good dude and means well and was simply basing his opinion on the information available. So please don't twist my words into anything else. In fact, please re-read my initial post as it is pretty straightforward in its intent from the opening line to the closing line.
 
muscle96ss said:
It should have been known because it was supposedly portrayed to Millard prior to the testing and according to Karl, people were aware that the content of that batch was other than specified.
Click to expand...

Yes, Karl told me that Sciroxx Testodex Enanthate 250 was intentionally contaminated with an ingredient that was not disclosed on the label. He told me this prior to the ChemTox testing

ChemTox tested for testosterone phenylpropionate. ChemTox did not detect testosterone phenylpropionate in the sample.

muscle96ss said:
Secondly, yes the PDF states, "none was found"; but the email directly from the owner of ChemTox states otherwise.
Click to expand...
No. It does not. This mysterious email does not contradict or refute ChemTox's analysis of sample number 15-09429 (Sciroxx Testodex Enanthate 250).

In fact, the email correspondence makes no reference whatsoever to AnabolicLab, Sciroxx/Karl, Testodex Enanthate 250, sample number 15-09429. You very well know this is true.

I'm disappointed that you guys are using the piece of non-evidence as "proof" that ChemTox didn't test for testosterone phenylpropionate for a couple of reasons.

The first reason is that the email does not say what you say it does. Your assertions are simply not supported by the content of the email.

Secondly, the readers of this thread are unable to independently evaluate the contents of the message because neither of the two parties to the email correspondence consented to have the private correspondence posted on the internet.
 
muscle96ss said:
You state, "why should it have been known?". It should have been known because it was supposedly portrayed to Millard prior to the testing and according to Karl, people were aware that the content of that batch was other than specified. I am going on the assumption that people are being truthful to me. Nowhere have I stated that this is fact, nor do I claim to know all the details involved.

Secondly, yes the PDF states, "none was found"; but the email directly from the owner of ChemTox states otherwise. Again, I am assuming that the owner of Chemtox is not lying and simply going on what was presented to me. I trust an email from the owner of the company, more than I trust a generic lab testing PDF from the company. Again, I am simply looking at the evidence that was present, realizing that some is contradictory and trying to make sense of it all.

So, I think you have misunderstood my post. I don't know how many times more I can type that I am not defending Karl, Chemtox, Millard, or anyone but GI Bro. He posted what he posted based on the evidence he was supplied and drew his conclusions based on the evidence supplied. The conclusions drawn were reasonable and logical based on the information available and he didn't deserve to be bashed in the way he was. That was the point of my post. My post has nothing to do with the details of how it came to be that this batch was made or what its actual contents is. I am simply stating that GI Bro is a good dude and means well and was simply basing his opinion on the information available. So please don't twist my words into anything else. In fact, please re-read my initial post as it is pretty straightforward in its intent from the opening line to the closing line.
Click to expand...

1) so Karl admitted his sample was contaminated with something that wasn't on the label but upon results of the testing, which included testing for the specific contaminant claimed as well as others, none was found. Why is Karl sending out what he believes is a contaminated batch of AAS????!!

2) you don't think GI bro should have received the treatment he did? Did you even bother to read his initial response to Trapmonster? The dude punked Trapmonster and Trapmonster continued to keep his cool. GI bro a red like a malicious punk which is why I responded to him the way I did. Had he stated his points without the subterfuge and malice I would have repsonded in kind.

3) and no, GI bros conclusions are not based on any logic no matter how it's spun. He email from the doctor doesn't say what you think it does and since it hasn't been posted it's basically irrelevant at this point.
 
muscle96ss said:
I work with plenty of alzheimers and dementia patients, but I think they can understand things better than some of you here. It was claimed that Millard was made aware PRIOR to the testing that the item he was testing contained 200mg of test e and 70mg of test phenylprop and to make sure that test phenylprop was tested for and was told that this would occur(I am not justifying who, what, where, or why the vial contained what it contained, get that through your head!). Therefore, if that is in fact true as claimed, then to say that the lab is only responsible for testing what is on the label is completely irresponsible. If the lab was told that the sample contained 200mg of test e and 70mg of test phenylprop and then ignored that information and only tested for test e; then for you to say that the lab did things correctly is wrong. So I understand your point, but you are missing our point of what was claimed and the evidence that was presented to support that claim. That is all we are talking about here.
Click to expand...
so by reading millards post, the test actually failed twice, it was underdosed according to the label, and didn't contain karls secret ingredient (that for some strange reason you thought was public knowledge). yet you and gi seem to want to keep an argument about underdosed, mislabeled gear going. go ahead and buy some, you guys will be very happy
 
muscle96ss said:
Let me take some heat off GI Bro. I too have seen the emails where Karl is trying to get some answers from the lab. Based on those emails and their contents, one would get the impression that test phenylprop was not tested for. This was a day or two ago, so I don't know what has transpired since; but all Karl was looking for was the lab to provide him with the scan of the test showing that it was in fact tested for test phenylprop and that none was present. Instead the emails he got led him to believe otherwise.

I am sure that everyone reading this is going to say, "unless you work for Karl, why is he getting you involved in his business". Its real simple, Karl trusts my opinions on things, as I have always been straightforward with him when I agree with him and when I don't agree with him as well. So he will often come to me for advice on how to handle certain situations. He came to me earlier in the week to let me know what was transpiring and wanted to know what he should do because he felt like he was being wronged. Most likely he did the same with GI Bro.

My advice to Karl was that it is fucked up if in fact they didn't test for test phenylprop. I added that Millard is a very reasonable person and to keep asking for proof. I stated that Millard has no reason to post a bad test and create controversy over the testing program unless he believed what he was doing was right.

So take it easy on GI Bro, he is not a shill and is simply stating his opinion based on the information that was present at the time.
Click to expand...
Amazing! I appreciate that.

Guys nobody is continuing to say the test was bad. Karl will have to pay the lab to retest the original sample to have any chance of vindication. If it's true, then maybe he can do that. I jumped the gun after seeing some of the emails and being told things, then came posting and making some posts with an accusatory tone. Since then, I've decided the email wasn't the smoking gun I first thought. We'll see if anything comes of it.

I'm still a huge AL/Millard fan. It was never more than asking if the lab really did what the lab's pdf stated or implied. Nothing to do with Millard really. I actually like the idea behind meso too, but it gets a little whacky over here. You guys attack some of the top tier UGL there are. You guys even give pharmacom a hard time about shit and criticize those products and I consider that a top UGL. It's just so paranoid and hostile at times. Just like labeling me a paid shill or closet rep or whatever. Not everything is a conspiracy.
 
Last edited:
Docd187123 said:
1) so Karl admitted his sample was contaminated with something that wasn't on the label but upon results of the testing, which included testing for the specific contaminant claimed as well as others, none was found. Why is Karl sending out what he believes is a contaminated batch of AAS????!!

2) you don't think GI bro should have received the treatment he did? Did you even bother to read his initial response to Trapmonster? The dude punked Trapmonster and Trapmonster continued to keep his cool. GI bro a red like a malicious punk which is why I responded to him the way I did. Had he stated his points without the subterfuge and malice I would have repsonded in kind.

3) and no, GI bros conclusions are not based on any logic no matter how it's spun. He email from the doctor doesn't say what you think it does and since it hasn't been posted it's basically irrelevant at this point.
Click to expand...
You've never seen the internal emails floating around. You didn't even know who Crimele was. You're the one with all the answers yet it was clear you didn't know much about what I was talking about in regard to what the Dr said. Just give it a break dude. I definitely jumped the gun, OK. I've looked like an ass for entertaining the phenyl theory for the sake of fleshing out any potential possibility it could have happened. Any source deserves a fair shake, imo. If he lied, it's a bold lie and he'll lose credibility. So that's his gamble if it's not true. Millard filled in some pieces that clarified some questions I had. What more do you want me to say? Nobody is trying to persuade anyone of anything at this point. Relax.
 
G.I. Bro said:
You've never seen the internal emails floating around. You didn't even know who Crimele was. You're the one with all the answers yet it was clear you didn't know much about what I was talking about in regard to what the Dr said. Just give it a break dude. I definitely jumped the gun, OK. I've looked like an ass for entertaining the phenyl theory for the sake of fleshing out any potential possibility it could have happened. Any source deserves a fair shake, imo. If he lied, it's a bold lie and he'll lose credibility. So that's his gamble if it's not true. Millard filled in some pieces that clarified some questions I had. What more do you want me to say? Nobody is trying to persuade anyone of anything at this point. Relax.
Click to expand...

Most of the post is irrelevant but I Muscle didn't realize why you got the backlash that you did and I answered him why.
 
G.I. Bro said:
Amazing! I appreciate that.

Guys nobody is continuing to say the test was bad. Karl will have to pay the lab to retest the original sample to have any chance of vindication. If it's true, then maybe he can do that. I jumped the gun after seeing some of the emails and being told things, then came posting and making some posts with an accusatory tone. Since then, I've decided the email wasn't the smoking gun I first thought. We'll see if anything comes of it.

I'm still a huge AL/Millard fan. It was never more than asking if the lab really did what the lab's pdf stated or implied. Nothing to do with Millard really. I actually like the idea behind meso too, but it gets a little whacky over here. You guys attack some of the top tier UGL there are. You guys even give pharmacom a hard time about shit and criticize those products and I consider that a top UGL. It's just so paranoid and hostile at times. Just like labeling me a paid shill or closet rep or whatever. Not everything is a conspiracy.
Click to expand...
GI, that post is complete and utter bullshit. you screwed up and instead of saying I'm sorry, I screwed up, you go into these long winded explanations to nowhere. And no source is protected or given a break over here, if you have a problem with that, maybe you'd be more comfortable at the paid source boards, where all the gear is gtg
 
Breaking news: Karl was right. ChemTox retracted its original report on Sciroxx Labs Testodex Enanthate 250.

The sample also contained 65.3 mg/ml of testosterone phenylpropionate in addition to the 207 mg/ml of testosterone enanthate.

I am awaiting an explanation from ChemTox.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

bigrobbie
objective research paper on those of us who handle our own TRT
Replies
9
Views
4K
Benf15harp
Benf15harp
AnabolicLab.com
Balkan Pharma Enandrol - HPLC/TAMC/TYMC - 2019-10 - SIMEC via AnabolicLab.com
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
8K
mancal70
mancal70
AnabolicLab.com
Dragon Pharma Cypionat 250 - HPLC/TAMC/TYMC - 2019-10 - SIMEC via AnabolicLab.com
Replies
4
Views
1K
Streetfighter V4
Streetfighter V4
AnabolicLab.com
SIS Labs Testex 200 - HPLC/TAMC/TYMC - 2019-10 - SIMEC via AnabolicLab.com
Replies
5
Views
1K
CompoundLifts31
CompoundLifts31
AnabolicLab.com
Balkan Pharma Cipandrol - HPLC/TAMC/TYMC - 2019-10 - SIMEC via AnabolicLab.com
Replies
2
Views
1K
Savagesteve
Savagesteve

Sponsors

Latest posts

Back
Top