I disagree that it is impractical and unrealistic to test for heavy metals and perform non targeted impurity analysis plus basic endotoxin screen for each finished batch. My hypothesis is that it is realistic and practical. I want to make it part of the cost of doing business. Will the customer agree as they become educated with new data?
I also think it is realistic and practical to test for heavy metals and microbial contamination by anyone who wishes to spend the money.
I am far from convinced that it is realistic to expect market forces to make it an obligatory cost of doing business for UGL enterprises... at this point in time.
I would think that any reasonable consumer of black market injectable AAS would want these two tests added to the basic quantitative analysis of active ingredients as a minimum standard for harm reduction.
In actuality, I don't think this is reflective of current consumer demand. The consumer pushback and even hostility against your proposal seems really strange and not at all what you would expect on a harm reduction forum.
So many people explicitly say they don't care if UGLs perform these tests. For that matter, there have been threads where consumers argue that UGL AAS are just as good or better than pharmaceutical AAS. This seems strange. Does this sentiment represent the majority of AAS UGL consumers?
I don't know. But it seems like it is a low priority among most consumers especially when compared to the demand for analyses of active ingredients.
The first step is to examine why is this the case?
You've seen a few people suggest that this type of testing is searching for a problem that doesn't exist. That is, heavy metal / microbiological contamination is exceedingly rare.
There is some support for this. Other than the spot testing in 2010 by Llewellyn / Tober, I haven't seen much evidence of heavy metal contamination in AAS.
As far as microbiological contamination, spot testing over the years hasn't found this to be an issue probably due to use of benzyl alcohol, etc commonly used in injectable AAS.
So, there's that. How big a problem does it have to be before consumers demand more testing in androgen black markets?
For what it is worth, no consumer needs to wait for UGLs to perform these tests, these type of tests are currently available to anyone who wants to pay for the extra assurance.
Just so you know, I'd love to live in a world where, first and foremost, I could buy all AAS from a regulated and legal source. In the absence of that, a world where UGLs conform to rigorous and extensive content/heavy metal/microbial testing as an expected cost of doing business would be next best.
I don't think it's a realistic expectation at the moment. But it would be cool if it happened down the road.
“
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw