I'm not sure why everyone is losing their minds over this.
@readalot is asking for additional testing above and beyond the standard qualitative/quantitative tests that most sources are doing now.
We are familiar with qualitative/quantitative questions like:
'
Does Primo 200 contain methenolone enanthate? How much methonolone enanthate?'
He wants testing to answer more questions like:
'
Does Primo 200 contain any impurities besides methenolone? Does it contain other AAS e.g. testosterone, trenbolone, etc? Does it contain impurities like arsenic, mercury, lead, etc.?'
And also additional testing to answer questions like:
'
Does Primo 200 contain microbiological, mold, or yeast contamination?'
And finally, he wants sources to pay for this additional testing.
It's basic harm reduction stuff that I would hope most people would support.
I would have expected the disagreement to understandably be more focused on the specifics of his proposal. I think the problems are in the details. Not the general harm reduction approach.
The naked source advocacy in other threads has caught me off guard.