Sending AAS samples to independent, accredited laboratory in Europe

[Wunderpus]

Here are the 17 products that are currently being tested.

View attachment 24958
Alpha Pharma Healthcare

• Testobolin 1ml ampoule 250mg/ml testosterone enanthate
• Nandrobolin 1 ml ampoule 250mg/ml nandrolone decanoate
• Boldebolin 1 ml ampoule 250mg/ml boldenone undecylenate

Balkan Pharmaceuticals

• Nandrolone D 1 ml ampoule 200mg/ml nandrolone decanoate
• Testosterona E 1 ml ampoule 250mg/ml testosterone enanthate

Eurochem Laboratories

• EC Boldoject 5ml 200mg/ml boldenone undecylenate
  
• EC Decaject 5ml 200mg/ml nandrolone decanoate
  
• EC Enanject 5ml 250mg/ml testosterone enanthate
• EC Trenaject 5ml 75mg/ml trenbolone acetate

Geneza Pharmaceuticals

• GP Bold 200 10ml vial 200mg/ml boldenone undecylenate
• GP Deca 250 10ml vial 250mg/ml nandrolone decanoate
• GP Test Enanth 250 10ml vial 250mg/ml testosterone enanthate
• GP Tren Acetate 100 10ml vial 100mg/ml trenbolone acetate

Pharmacom Labs

• Pharma BOLD 300 10ml vial 300mg/ml boldenone undecylenate
• Pharma NAN-D 300 10ml vial 300mg/ml nandrolone decanoate
• Pharma TEST E 300 10ml vial 300mg/ml testosterone enanthate
• Pharma TREN-A 100 10ml vial 100mg/ml trenbolone acetate

Luckily I have 3 out of 4 of those Pharmacom products... LOL. Hoping for the best.

 

[Sampei]

To bad no primobolan tested

eurochem? it's a well known brand? I never used heard it.

Alpha Pharma I don't find a trustworthy supplier anymore in Europe.
Except muscledevelop.co but it's expensive as hell.

 

[DestinedForGreatness]

Considering making a donation. When will the results come back for the Pharmacom products?

 

[greenddog1]

bump

 

[Millard]

To bad no primobolan tested

eurochem? it's a well known brand? I never used heard it.

Alpha Pharma I don't find a trustworthy supplier anymore in Europe.
Except muscledevelop.co but it's expensive as hell.

Eurochem Laboratories was selected more for their longevity in the business than anything else to be honest. A UGL label that's been operating 10+ years uninterrupted isn't very common. SRCS did some analyses on Eurochem for me way back in 2004.

The other manufacturers were also chosen based on longevity in the game (5+ years) as well as popularity, how well-funded the operation appeared to be and their seemingly large customer bases. But most importantly, the next four manufacturers were selected, in large part, because they tend to make the biggest and boldest claims about their company and its products.

Alpha Pharma Healthcare claims to be a legally-registered Indian company that has its products contract manufactured by legitimate pharmaceutical company to human grade standards. It has claimed its products are sold in hospitals and pharmacies.

Balkan Pharmaceuticals claims to be a legal registered pharmaceutical company that manufactures human grade AAS (and other drugs) in its own government-approved pharmaceutical facilities subject to internal quality control testing. It claims its products are distributed in pharmacies in certain markets.

Geneza Pharmaceuticals claims that it conducts regular lab testing of its raw materials and finished products for quality control validation. It publicly disseminates lab reports on a regular basis to substantiate its claims.

Pharmacom Labs claims to own its own manufacturing facilities in which it performs internal testing of its products for quality control validation. It posts numerous videos that allegedly display its pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities and capabilities.

Steroid lab testing won't necessarily be able to prove these claims. However, quantitative dosage analysis can be useful in determining whether the product quality is at all consistent with the claims.

For example, if a manufacturers claims that it conducts lab tests on all of its products and can guarantee the contents match the label claims and independent lab tests show results of significantly underdosed/overdosed products, then it would seem almost certain that the claim of testing all products is untrue.

From a harm reduction perspective, the choice of these manufacturers seemed to be a good use of limited funds to have the maximum impact with greatest relevance to most consumers.

 

[Millard]

Considering making a donation. When will the results come back for the Pharmacom products?

I'm waiting to hear back from the lab.

 

[zombie]

Suppose a lab actually tests well and meets labeld claims of dosage and purity, would the lab be retested in the future to ensure that they are continuing to meet labeled claims? A lab is only as good as its last batch. By retesting some time in the future we may have a chance to hold these manufactures to a higher standard. That would be the hope at least.

 

[Millard]

Suppose a lab actually tests well and meets labeld claims of dosage and purity, would the lab be retested in the future to ensure that they are continuing to meet labeled claims? A lab is only as good as its last batch. By retesting some time in the future we may have a chance to hold these manufactures to a higher standard. That would be the hope at least.

Absolutely. There is limited value in a single lab report for a single product. It may or may not be representative of future batches of that product or representative of other products sold by the manufacturer. But imagine if we have a database of hundreds of lab reports in a year or even thousands within a couple of years. The products of some manufacturers could very well have been tested 5-10 times per year. This can give us so much more information. This is what the program is striving towards.

If a product tests well and meets label claims, this will guarantee more rigorous scrutiny and monitoring of the product in the future. Such products will be more likely to be subjected to microbiological testing and heavy metal testing and other more comprehensive testing.

I don't think it makes sense to perform more comprehensive testing on products that perform poorly in quantitative dosage testing. If a product is only 50% of label claim, what difference does it make if it's confirmed free from bacteria or lead? Consumers aren't going to use the product anyway.

As far as I am concerned, there are more compelling reasons to repeatedly retest products that have previously tested well than to retest products that have tested poorly.

 

[smbignick]

@Millard Baker -- Will you be revealing sources of these products? Lots of talk out there about "fake" ap, or Darius vs. Frank pharmacom, etc

 

[Millard]

@Millard Baker -- Will you be revealing sources of these products? Lots of talk out there about "fake" ap, or Darius vs. Frank pharmacom, etc

Generally, no. For two reasons. 1. The products being tested are obtained covertly and anonymously. We want to minimize specifics of where and how the samples were purchased. 2. We don't want to show favoritism to any particular reseller over another.

It is possible in rare circumstances. For example, if we publish a poor test result and the manufacturer disputes the results and wants to question the chain of custody, then we will disclose the name of the reseller to the manufacturer. If the manufacturer wants to throw its reseller(s) under the bus, we will present this as the manufacturer's response to the lab report.

 

[super8]

I really hope this keeps going. I just donated. You're testing a few products that are sitting in my closet on standby lol. Great idea and I will donate monthly.

 

[Millard]

I really hope this keeps going. I just donated. You're testing a few products that are sitting in my closet on standby lol. Great idea and I will donate monthly.

Thanks. Together we are all going to make this happen.

 

[CensoredBoardsSuck]

Suppose a lab actually tests well and meets labeld claims of dosage and purity, would the lab be retested in the future to ensure that they are continuing to meet labeled claims? A lab is only as good as its last batch. By retesting some time in the future we may have a chance to hold these manufactures to a higher standard. That would be the hope at least.

To really be effective over the long term, the tests would need to be conducted in much the same way WADA do out-of-competition testing on athletes, i.e., unpredictability of repeated tests. Sources will be more likely to provide a good product on a consistent basis if they know they could be tested at any time. I'm sure that is exactly what Millard has in mind.

 

[Millard]

To really be effective over the long term, the tests would need to be conducted in much the same way WADA do out-of-competition testing on athletes, i.e., unpredictability of repeated tests. Sources will be more likely to provide a good product on a consistent basis if they know they could be tested at any time. I'm sure that is exactly what Millard has in mind.

Yes! Just because a manufacturer has 4 products tested this month doesn't mean we're done with them this year. We may test the same products again in 6 months or maybe 4 different products. We may even test them again the very next month. They won't know. And we will never tell.

 

[paulietuck]

yes, and excellent idea...

 

[Sampei]

This is gonna be a fucking game changer! I hope there will be in the future better time for us AAS users. Where we can inject quality stuff in our body and spend our hard earned money instead of wasting it.

 

[MikeSz]

This is gonna be a fucking game changer! I hope there will be in the future better time for us AAS users. Where we can inject quality stuff in our body and spend our hard earned money instead of wasting it.

So true.The hardest part in the whole game is to find quality gear.So much bunk and underdosed shit.

 

[Mr.B66]

Im in for sure Millard you can count on donations from me!! Just gotta figure out where to send $

 

[greenddog1]

@Mr.B66
Donate here --> https://www.gofundme.com/aas-harm-reduction

 

[smbignick]

Very interested to see these results. Were the samples sent in verified against lab quality control #'s if applicable? I had some Balkan test e and dbol from roidgear (alin?) a few years back, no bloods, but the stretch marks to prove it was fire lol