Source QC and C of A (do you have one?)

[readalot]

Also, as long as the product is filtered through a sterile 0.22ug filter- mold and bacteria will not pass through. It doesn’t matter if raws have mold in them.

For reference - a water particle theoretically is the size of your thumb nail. An oil particle with testosterone dissolved may be the size of your fist. Bacteria & fungus would be about the size of the earth.

A 0.22ug filter sterilizes the product.

Good clarification...endotoxin/bacteria would only be meaningful on finished products that are properly filtered. The test of the raw testing would still hold.

 

[Pinnacle Elements]

I can assure you I won't make any killing. I have no financial interest or conflict in this and even offered to help fund. Wow.

I need to step up as a source? Yeah ok.

So you acknowledge this idea would be poor for business yet, you harass others to employ these measures at the cost of their business?

My dude, gtfo

 

[readalot]

So you acknowledge this idea would be poor for business yet, you harass others to employ these measures at the cost of their business?

My dude, gtfo

No I don't acknowledge it would be poor for business my reading comprehension challenged Brother.

How did you get that from what I wrote?

Seriously.

And I have harassed no one. The only person harassed was me at every step of the way for bringing this up.

Tell you what:

Since people are having such a hard time wrapping their heads around this here's what I'll do.

I'll work with Jano to come up with the closest set of tests he has right now to do what I am proposing. @janoshik you appear to be the only competent lab to scope this with. Let's build off your reply above to skunk works what it would cost for a package deal to cover the testing I propose. Can you help me with that?

In addition to HPLC strength...

(1) organic impurity screen (will your HPLC method properly resolve AAS API from side product cousin?) See my comments on stability vs non-stability based methods above

(2) metals (ICP)

(3) residual solvents (you had some ideas on this). Class 2 vs Class 3.

Doable or not without significant additional capital investment?

I've had zero input from anyone besides you on the technical feasibility and scope of this enhanced screening.

Thanks.

Anyone have any constructive technical comments or just more flaming?

In before more naked source advocacy and hysteria.

 

[Pinnacle Elements]

No I don't acknowledge it would be poor for business my reading comprehension challenged Brother.

How did you get that from what I wrote?

Seriously.

I can assure you I won't make any killing.

 

[SkankHunt]

'Does Primo 200 contain microbiological, mold, or yeast contamination?'

I would like to see this. Simec used to do this with AL and I think it was Hilma that came back with contamination.

 

[readalot]

Yes my point was I was not getting into the source business. Not that the testing would destroy a source's business case.

Does that clarify the misunderstanding?

My hypothesis is the incremental cost for this testing will not significantly impact gross margin for decent sized operation. TBD.

 

[AlexDavis43]

Does it contain other organic impurities that may be injurious?

Injurious how? We have been using these products for years.

Do you mean injurious like an extremely slow-acting toxin? Like they said about coffee.

 

[Millard]

I propose @readalot steps up as a source to provide these tested products to the standards he seeks.

I don’t think it’s a terrible idea. But I think he will find that the costs associated with his desires don’t resonate with a profitable business.

If he’s correct, he will make a killing in the niche he identified in the market.

However, the market seems to hold cost effective over quality, in general. I.e- QSC has multiple accounts of floaters in their vials. Yet, people still frenzy over the source.

So you acknowledge this idea would be poor for business yet, you harass others to employ these measures at the cost of their business?

My dude, gtfo

Seriously. I don't really think consumers should give a fuck how sources can maximize their profit. Cool if that's your angle that you want to harp on again and again and again.

I want to minimize the harm that comes from injecting black market products. Sources could easily afford to do a lot more testing (especially the larger ones) and still make a good profit. Not the maximum profit possible but boo-hoo for them. So why not pressure them to do it.

However, your point is well-taken. The consumer demand is simply not there. Until the demand is sufficient to create a competitive advantage for sources who do perform such extensive testing, we won't see much additional progress.

Sources are going to always try to maximize profits. That doesn't mean we should be their advocates and cheerlead for them for every dollar they take from us.

 

[readalot]

Injurious how? We have been using these products for years.

Do you mean injurious like an extremely slow-acting toxin? Like they said about coffee.

So you already have the answer?

Based on your relevant experience and comprehensive record of ugl safety, you can confidently conclude the concerns I have raised are a non issue? No concerns with cumulative exposure at 1 year, 5 years, etc?

Any impurity from ugl raws will have similar toxicity profile to coffee?

Are you hand waving or you actually have the answers?

 

[Millard]

This^

It seems most people would rather have cheap AAS. Market forces speaking.

 

[readalot]

The consumer demand is simply not there.

Is this due to ignorance or indifference?

Will education (like some test cases here) help bring about demand? TBD.

I clearly have no words or response if folks are fine injecting gear with floaters / known visible contaminants. Are they refiltering?

Thanks for your thoughts.

 

[Pinnacle Elements]

My hypothesis is the incremental cost for this testing will not significantly impact gross margin for decent sized operation. TBD.

Seriously. I don't really think consumers should give a fuck how sources can maximize their profit. Cool if that's your angle that you want to harp on again and again and again.

I want to minimize the harm that comes from injecting black market products. Sources could easily afford to do a lot more testing (especially the larger ones) and still make a good profit. Not the maximum profit possible but boo-hoo for them. So why not pressure them to do it.

However, your point is well-taken. The consumer demand is simply not there. Until the demand is sufficient to create a competitive advantage for sources who do perform such extensive testing, we won't see any progress.

Sources are going to always try to maximize profits. That doesn't mean we should be their advocates and cheerlead for them for every dollar they take from us.

It’s the economic concept that the cost would trickle down to the customer. It always does. The idea is vialable, but would it hold up in the market? I doubt it.

I believe very few people would buy a Deca vial for $120 with these COAs vs a Deca vial from Stan for $35 with the testing he provides already. Maybe I’m wrong, but I’m not the one proposing the idea.

 

[Millard]

I think the problem is

-he is linking this to every source
-he doesn't even use UGL

I'm not sure why this is problematic. Someone should pressure more sources to do more testing. All sources could do better and do more testing.

Choosing sides between the guy trying to get more testing done and the sources that say fuck off should be easy.

 

[readalot]

I believe very few people would buy a Deca vial for $120 with these COAs vs a Deca vial from Stan for $35 with the testing he provides already

I think the more accurate comparison is $40 to 45 max with C of A vs $35 existing. My goal is to spell this out. Obviously depends on source volume.

Thanks for daylighting specifically.

Once I have the tentative numbers I will estimate.

 

[Fattyone]

Have you thought about purchasing some finished oils and raws from a couple of the bigger domestic sources here and doing the testing yourself?

They have reimbursement deals. Also, it might ignite some support should you find anything weird.

 

[Pinnacle Elements]

Here’s a new thought- maybe a source would be open to offering larger store credit to customers who blind test these parameters.

The benefit & costs could be shared for multiple reasons:

1. The tests, if done, would be blind from stock being shipped. Larger confidence from community testing.

2. For the source, store credit lessens the burden on their overall operation. Keeping their competitive edge & appealing price points.

3. Continuous testing from community would uphold the source to consistency & quality.

Seems like the best way if this were to be implemented, imo.

 

[Millard]

It’s the economic concept that the cost would trickle down to the customer. It always does. The idea is vialable, but would it hold up in the market? I doubt it.

I believe very few people would buy a Deca vial for $120 with these COAs vs a Deca vial from Stan for $35 with the testing he provides already. Maybe I’m wrong, but I’m not the one proposing the idea.

I don't disagree about the general supply/demand/cost issues.

But I think you're grossly distorting the issue when you suggest it is a choice between $35 deca and $120 deca

Additionally, I think it would create a disproportionate burden on smaller UGLs with the smaller margins.

Ironically, the larger UGLs are least likely to implement more testing.

So, this is the situation.

In the past, it was thanks to some smaller UGLs that took a chance with extensive qualitative/quantitative and it turned out to be a competitive advantage - they gained market share and I think larger UGLs only followed because they had to.

I'm not sure that widespread testing for impurities/contaminants would bring a competitive advantage at this point in time.

It's one thing when testing helps guarantee the contains accurate dosages of muscle-building and fat-losing ingredients.

It's another thing when testing just assures that you're not injecting contaminants. Hey, that's super important but often it pales in comparison with the physical appearance benefits.

I'm still going to root for harm reduction for consumers over profits for black market AAS vendors.

 

[Millard]

Is this due to ignorance or indifference?

Will education (like some test cases here) help bring about demand? TBD.

I clearly have no words or response if folks are fine injecting gear with floaters / known visible contaminants. Are they refiltering?

Thanks for your thoughts.

I think most experienced users haven't noticed any obvious negative consequences that can be traced to impurities/contaminants. If you've been doing this for years/decades, experience tells you that the probability is in your favor.

They've been much more likely to notice the absence of muscle-building effects due to underdosed or bogus products.

So I think qualitative/quantitative is where the demand is.

Of course, you will occasionally see a user with an injection site infection. It's just often enough to raise temporary suspicion about microbial contamination in UGL products. Yet the isolated case is too easy to dismiss as improper injection technique/procedure.

It certainly would be nice to have assurances of products with no detectable contamination. I think most would appreciate this.

 

[Millard]

I would like to see this. Simec used to do this with AL and I think it was Hilma that came back with contamination.

Yeah, the heavy metal contamination noted by Bill Lewellyn and Rony Tober wasn't replicated with the limited samples subjected to ICP-OES screening. But there was that one case that exceeded the microbiological detection threshold.

 

[Millard]

Here’s a new thought- maybe a source would be open to offering larger store credit to customers who blind test these parameters.

The benefit & costs could be shared for multiple reasons:

1. The tests, if done, would be blind from stock being shipped. Larger confidence from community testing.

2. For the source, store credit lessens the burden on their overall operation. Keeping their competitive edge & appealing price points.

3. Continuous testing from community would uphold the source to consistency & quality.

Seems like the best way if this were to be implemented, imo.

I wasn't initially a fan of the store credit reimbursement for consumer blind testing but it's proven to be an effective way to get more testing done for all the reasons you mention.

The marketplace changes when harm reduction becomes a competitive advantage. But that only happens when consumers pressure vendors.

Even if such store credit doesn't noticeably change market forces, at least it will provide the individual consumer who ordered the testing with greater assurances regarding the risks associated with the products they are using.