Sending AAS samples to independent, accredited laboratory in Europe

[Millard]

If it ensured testing occurred randomly and anonymously, I would also be open to contributing to tests of aas from other members. I'm sure at this point every scammer on Meso knows my various addresses.

Please elaborate on "randomly" and "anonymously".

I first approached the AAS harm reduction project using the EcstasyData.org / DDL arrangement as a model. In sum, EcstasyData (Erowids) sponsored the testing and negotiated a special discounted rate so that anyone could anonymously submit a sample for testing (as long as cash payment was included).

No accredited lab that I contacted was willing to copy this model for AAS testing/harm reduction. Among the ones willing to test AAS samples, no one would accept anonymous payment especially from dozens of different people.

The best case scenario that I may have found involves MESO sponsoring the testing and negotiating a special discounted rate for sample submissions as long as MESO (or a single entity) pays for the testing. This precludes anonymous sample submission. MESO obviously can't pay for everyone's analysis.

This would mean sample submission would be pseudonymous at best (i.e. the individuals who submit samples will be members known only by their selected usernames). The challenge would be to devise a transparent and fair method of determining who submits samples every month.

Does any member who is willing to pay x amount of dollars get to have their sample tested? Can they test 10 samples each as long as they pay? What are the problems with this? What biases will this create?

If the members who submit the sample don't have to pay anything for testing, how should they be selected? I don't think it should be a popularity contest. And I don't think it should be limited to a handful of people. Ideally, if 1,000 samples are submitted, they should be submitted by as many as 1,000 different members and certainly no less than 300-500.

But the question remains - how should they be selected? I'm leaning towards the forum points system or likes system as one criteria - only members with x number or likes or x number of points qualify for free testing. What are the problems with this? What biases wil this create?

One pragmatic issue that may influence selection is the lower costs of testing similar samples. For example, it might cost $200 per sample to test 30 samples involving 10 different steroids (3x10) but it would only cost $100 per sample to test 30 samples involving 3 different steroids (10x3). So, it would best most cost-effective (not necessarily most random) to say 'for October we are only testing methenolone enanthate, nandrolone decanoate and oxandrolone - you must have those samples to qualify for free testing'. But will this create problems or biases?

I am very open to suggestions.

 

[devildog93]

You could do like on Big Bang Theory and roll a d20 for everything. As for testing different compounds or not, that sounds problematic. Hey sources, this month you are free to scam as much as you want as long as it is a test ester because we aren't doing those this month. If you decided to do it this way it would have ot be up to Millard or whoever and be hidden to the rest of us. So we get monthly results, but we don't necessarily know what compounds they are going to be until after the fact.

As to what gets tested....i think it should be the most popular compounds with maybe one more exotic compound a month, something like that. This month we are testing lab x's test c, lab y's dbol, and lab z's tren ace. Maybe something like that.

Could we set this up as a donation type thing? I don't know how well that would work, but it would be like anything else in life, paying for a service. If we don't have enough cash in the kitty, no testing. When we gather up enough for a batch, then it's on.

 

[incrediblebulk]

I would like to see people send in samples that are not labeled and have them test with
Without knowing the source period. That way there is no room for bias

 

[johnnyBALLZ]

Please elaborate on "randomly" and "anonymously".

I first approached the AAS harm reduction project using the EcstasyData.org / DDL arrangement as a model. In sum, EcstasyData (Erowids) sponsored the testing and negotiated a special discounted rate so that anyone could anonymously submit a sample for testing (as long as cash payment was included).

No accredited lab that I contacted was willing to copy this model for AAS testing/harm reduction. Among the ones willing to test AAS samples, no one would accept anonymous payment especially from dozens of different people.

The best case scenario that I may have found involves MESO sponsoring the testing and negotiating a special discounted rate for sample submissions as long as MESO (or a single entity) pays for the testing. This precludes anonymous sample submission. MESO obviously can't pay for everyone's analysis.

This would mean sample submission would be pseudonymous at best (i.e. the individuals who submit samples will be members known only by their selected usernames). The challenge would be to devise a transparent and fair method of determining who submits samples every month.

Does any member who is willing to pay x amount of dollars get to have their sample tested? Can they test 10 samples each as long as they pay? What are the problems with this? What biases will this create?

If the members who submit the sample don't have to pay anything for testing, how should they be selected? I don't think it should be a popularity contest. And I don't think it should be limited to a handful of people. Ideally, if 1,000 samples are submitted, they should be submitted by as many as 1,000 different members and certainly no less than 300-500.

But the question remains - how should they be selected? I'm leaning towards the forum points system or likes system as one criteria - only members with x number or likes or x number of points qualify for free testing. What are the problems with this? What biases wil this create?

One pragmatic issue that may influence selection is the lower costs of testing similar samples. For example, it might cost $200 per sample to test 30 samples involving 10 different steroids (3x10) but it would only cost $100 per sample to test 30 samples involving 3 different steroids (10x3). So, it would best most cost-effective (not necessarily most random) to say 'for October we are only testing methenolone enanthate, nandrolone decanoate and oxandrolone - you must have those samples to qualify for free testing'. But will this create problems or biases?

I am very open to suggestions.

Holy shit.. Meso sponsored testing?! You'd really be taking it to the next level Millard.. Fuck yes!!

 

[Millard]

You could do like on Big Bang Theory and roll a d20 for everything. As for testing different compounds or not, that sounds problematic. Hey sources, this month you are free to scam as much as you want as long as it is a test ester because we aren't doing those this month. If you decided to do it this way it would have ot be up to Millard or whoever and be hidden to the rest of us. So we get monthly results, but we don't necessarily know what compounds they are going to be until after the fact.

As to what gets tested....i think it should be the most popular compounds with maybe one more exotic compound a month, something like that. This month we are testing lab x's test c, lab y's dbol, and lab z's tren ace. Maybe something like that.

Could we set this up as a donation type thing? I don't know how well that would work, but it would be like anything else in life, paying for a service. If we don't have enough cash in the kitty, no testing. When we gather up enough for a batch, then it's on.

Good point about notifying sources which products may be tested. But I think the process has to be completely transparent. Once you start keeping parts of the process secret (no matter how good the intentions), it calls into question the credibility of the process. There must be another way.

Funding. That's a very important issue. We need to have some estimate of how much demand truly exists for this type of harm reduction testing service. If MESO negotiates a discounted rate based on 500 - 1000 samples per year, that is a big commitment. Will it be funded? And how?

 

[johnnyBALLZ]

Good point about notifying sources which products may be tested. But I think the process has to be completely transparent. Once you start keeping parts of the process secret (no matter how good the intentions), it calls into question the credibility of the process. There must be another way.

Funding. That's a very important issue. We need to have some estimate of how much demand truly exists for this type of harm reduction testing service. If MESO negotiates a discounted rate based on 500 - 1000 samples per year, that is a big commitment. Will it be funded? And how?

Donations, the best way I can think of to get donations is to post who donated what.. I don't think funding would be that big of a deal, could be wrong though.

 

[Millard]

I would like to see people send in samples that are not labeled and have them test with
Without knowing the source period. That way there is no room for bias

What is the rationale?

Would you not trust an independent, government-licensed, accredited lab? Do you think they would falsify results?

But would you always trust the hundreds of members who are sending in the unlabeled samples?

The lab is the strongest link in the entire process. It's every other step along that we where there's much more room for bias.

I'd rather have labeled samples, require members to take photos of the submitted sample from multiple angles and have the lab take snapshot of sample upon receipt to verify (as one example).

 

[eminem93]

i would, what is the name and contact info of the lab that will. plz.

 

[Fckit]

I'm in Millard.. Don't know any other way initially aside from coming out of pocket. I think we could round up funds for a good cause. Perhaps after results are returned, some of the more reputable Labs would offer credit.

Are they requiring a single entity for all submissions, similar to Goose's prospective lab?

 

[Millard]

i would, what is the name and contact info of the lab that will. plz.

I do not have a firm commitment. If it works out (and if it doesn't), the details will be disclosed. Samples will be submitted directly to the lab. And the official, unaltered reports will be published online with lab contact information for verification purposes. I am reluctant to disclose any information beforehand out of concern that many of the interests that stand to suffer losses due to such a project would sabotage our efforts. Several hurdles remain but it looks promising.

 

[Millard]

Are they requiring a single entity for all submissions, similar to Goose's prospective lab?

No. MESO will never handle any samples. The only issue raised was that the negotiated rate would be higher on 20 packages in the mail per month instead of one package with 20 samples.

The big issue is that the rate is nowhere near @Juice n Goose <$100 rate.

 

[flenser]

Please elaborate on "randomly" and "anonymously".

I actually meant random with respect to when it is done, and anonymous with respect to the source. I am willing to pay for testing from other members, because as much as I want real and properly dosed aas, I don't want a source to selectively not-scam me due to my known testing habits. I'm nearly certain this has already happened a couple of times, just from labmax testing. That's why I stopped posting labmax tests when they pass.

As far as selecting the ones who get free testing, I would go along with just about any arrangement as long as the source didn't know before shipping that their vial would be tested. I'm sure donations would dry up quickly if the arrangement became corrupt in any way.

 

[Millard]

I actually meant random with respect to when it is done, and anonymous with respect to the source. I am willing to pay for testing from other members, because as much as I want real and properly dosed aas, I don't want a source to selectively not-scam me due to my known testing habits. I'm nearly certain this has already happened a couple of times, just from labmax testing. That's why I stopped posting labmax tests when they pass.

It's almost funny to hear someone complain about being "selectively not-scammed". But you are right - that could be a major problem.

I am hoping it can be averted if the number of members submitting samples is very high and the number of samples any given member submits is low. Furthermore, any member can only submit sample(s) once in a specified time period (e.g. 6-12 months). This will prevent sources from trying to influence or guess which members will send samples for testing.

 

[johnnyBALLZ]

It's almost funny to hear someone complain about being "selectively not-scammed". But you are right - that could be a major problem.

I am hoping it can be averted if the number of members submitting samples is very high and the number of samples any given member submits is low. Furthermore, any member can only submit sample(s) once in a specified time period (e.g. 6-12 months). This will prevent sources from trying to influence or guess which members will send samples for testing.

Yea, God damn!!! I fucking wish I could selectively not be scammed.. Fuck!!

I get what you're saying though flenser..

 

[Capt Forest]

I am in. I would gladly contribute money or aas to this cause.

 

[flenser]

It seems very workable, legal risks aside. I can see shills creating loads of new members to use for future testing purposes. Large source operations may be able to alter the pass/fail statistics quite a bit. You might need to limit how often a source's products can be sent in.

 

[whodatnation]

Millard, firstly I want to thank you for continuing on this endeavor. Second, I'm in.

No doubt that the system that we do input now will have to continually transform to meet the scammers route of defeating our testing.

The big thing here though is that the numbers, numbers of scammers versus legit ugl, will drastically change once anything like this is achieved. Most scammers are too lazy to keep trying once the public actually finds out which labs are gtg. At that point in order for new guys or any lab for that matter to get any type of customers would without a doubt prove themselves.

This is going to change the game and I for one look forward to it

 

[whodatnation]

While submission will be anonymously discussions between us on who sent what and from where will always hold the most value when it's coming from trusted members . While anyone can send samples when someone such as yourself says you sent compound whatever and the results are this, would hold more weight to me then any random testing.

It seems very workable, legal risks aside. I can see shills creating loads of new members to use for future testing purposes. Large source operations may be able to alter the pass/fail statistics quite a bit. You might need to limit how often a source's products can be sent in.

 

[Millard]

It seems very workable, legal risks aside. I can see shills creating loads of new members to use for future testing purposes. Large source operations may be able to alter the pass/fail statistics quite a bit. You might need to limit how often a source's products can be sent in.

I've considered the shill problem. Do you think requiring a minimum number of points or likes would solve it for the most part?

Having said that, the likes system is not perfect since @Astro Labs has more likes than most members. There's something wrong with that picture especially when you look at the valuable contributors below his name. Members need to re-evaluate their relationship with sources. No source should be on that list.

 

[flenser]

While submission will be anonymously discussions between us on who sent what and from where will always hold the most value when it's coming from trusted members . While anyone can send samples when someone such as yourself says you sent compound whatever and the results are this, would hold more weight to me then any random testing.

Thanks for the vote of trust. I think the numbers Millard has been tossing around would be a definite game changer in many ways. One would be the influence of the "trusted" vet would be severely limited against a swarm of random test results.