THE new "Generic" HGH Assay PAGE! AAA testing

[Doug_S]

Thank you.

Do you have any suggestions what could be improved in the future?

I can't really think of anything else, my plans consist mostly of increasing resolution for RP-HPLC method, be it by further method improvement or by investing into additional columns. However, even as it is it's exceeding EU pharmacopoeia requirements for resolution by far as far as I'm aware.

I am oriented towards data usability in my position. Much of the data I generate ends up on legal documents.

To have true Level IV Data you would need accreditation, which obviously cannot happen since these are black market chemicals.

However, standardizing and making available you standard operating procedures for your methods is a great step on transparency and reproducibility.

I would also include your split samples and duplicates in your reporting. You can have qualitative data but not quantative data without showing you hit your DQO

In the long run, pressure to have manufacturers sample each batch would go a long way, and is what we should ask for if possible. Really, if they can replace a seized kit, they can spare a vial and a few hundred bucks for independent analysis.

 

[Jeffg353]

In the long run, pressure to have manufacturers sample each batch would go a long way, and is what we should ask for if possible. Really, if they can replace a seized kit, they can spare a vial and a few hundred bucks for independent analysis.

I completely agree but the only thing is having a lab/vendor send directly for testing is highly questionable and doesn't hold much weight. Can send real stuff to lab and bunk shit to customers. Which is why most prefer to anonymously have a customer purchase then send off for testing.

 

[Marcus]

I completely agree but the only thing is having a lab/vendor send directly for testing is highly questionable and doesn't hold much weight. Can send real stuff to lab and bunk shit to customers. Which is why most prefer to anonymously have a customer purchase then send off for testing.

Yes, but these sellers should be testing it for their own good and their customers. That way they don't ship out hundreds of kits when a batch comes back bad, and instead have it replaced asap

 

[Ripped]

Yes, but these sellers should be testing it for their own good and their customers. That way they don't ship out hundreds of kits when a batch comes back bad, and instead have it replaced asap

I agree with you bro. sure some ugl"s are shady but it's usually these smaller fly by night or small domestic labs that we have to watch the most.

But these larger company's that have the means to repeatedly test batches have nothing to gain in the long run by falsifying test results.

 

[janoshik]

I am oriented towards data usability in my position. Much of the data I generate ends up on legal documents.

To have true Level IV Data you would need accreditation, which obviously cannot happen since these are black market chemicals.

However, standardizing and making available you standard operating procedures for your methods is a great step on transparency and reproducibility.

I would also include your split samples and duplicates in your reporting. You can have qualitative data but not quantative data without showing you hit your DQO

In the long run, pressure to have manufacturers sample each batch would go a long way, and is what we should ask for if possible. Really, if they can replace a seized kit, they can spare a vial and a few hundred bucks for independent analysis.

Actually, as long as the HGH I receive is sample size and not for human use, it's legal.

I'm applying for accreditation for testing HGH, but it seems to be a process taking months, if not years around here. Also, I don't think that such thing is really necessary.

SIMEC is not accredited for testing AAS and HGH and they don't even validate their methods for either, and yet the people around here had never really cared about that.

I got my SOP written down and have had it reviewed - I'm not sure I want to make this public, but I'll think about it well. However, doing it would mean I have to share my know-how that's worth a lot and I spent many hundreds of hours acquiring.

The rest I will proceed in doing and suggesting.

Thank you very much, your input is very appreciated!

 

[janoshik]

I completely agree but the only thing is having a lab/vendor send directly for testing is highly questionable and doesn't hold much weight. Can send real stuff to lab and bunk shit to customers. Which is why most prefer to anonymously have a customer purchase then send off for testing.

And what would happen if the customer sends the same batch that I tested and it tests different than the one that was sent to me by a vendor?

I can't imagine the vendor recovering from that.

And vendors are very aware of that.

 

[janoshik]

Yes, but these sellers should be testing it for their own good and their customers. That way they don't ship out hundreds of kits when a batch comes back bad, and instead have it replaced asap

Some of them already do - it's as you said, it can save them a lot of money in the long run.

I agree with you bro. sure some ugl"s are shady but it's usually these smaller fly by night or small domestic labs that we have to watch the most.

But these larger company's that have the means to repeatedly test batches have nothing to gain in the long run by falsifying test results.

Agree.

And it's cheaper to toss bad product, than to deal with consequences of the problem being found out. I still recall a guy, who's not in a business anymore, who tossed a kilo of raws because there *might* have been a problem.

Only sources, that don't have any reputation to maintain and are ready to ghost as soon as the problems arrive, are willing to distribute bad product, imo...

 

[Jeffg353]

I agree with u 110% but I guess what I was trying to say that some members would view the testing/results with a great deal of skepticism.

 

[janoshik]

I agree with u 110% but I guess what I was trying to say that some members would view the testing/results with a great deal of skepticism.

Nothing's perfect, but some people will never be satisfied.

Good things shouldn't be stopped because of those few people.

 

[ProfessorX]

Actually, as long as the HGH I receive is sample size and not for human use, it's legal.

I'm applying for accreditation for testing HGH, but it seems to be a process taking months, if not years around here. Also, I don't think that such thing is really necessary.

SIMEC is not accredited for testing AAS and HGH and they don't even validate their methods for either, and yet the people around here had never really cared about that.

I got my SOP written down and have had it reviewed - I'm not sure I want to make this public, but I'll think about it well. However, doing it would mean I have to share my know-how that's worth a lot and I spent many hundreds of hours acquiring.

The rest I will proceed in doing and suggesting.

Thank you very much, your input is very appreciated!

SIMEC:

Link:

http://simec.ch/en/laboranalytik/9-laboratory-analytics/33-methods.html

• Steroid analytics in tablets, powders, water or oily solutions
  We have the methods and experience to find over 60 different steroids, and our repertoire is constantly being expanded.

The subject of steroids remains very delicate: The use and or possession of steroids are forbidden in many countries, and they are frequently abused for doping. There are many dubious suppliers, which introduce poor quality or even fraudulently labelled products to the market.

In Switzerland, steroids analytics and the importation and possession of corresponding reference standards is permitted by the authorities.

Over the years, we have established the determination for a large number of very different steroids in our laboratory, but new products are constantly being introduced. While doing so, we were able to uncover false information about the content or ingredients several times and thus contribute to the prevention of further serious harm to the health of users.

Narcotics License:
http://simec.ch/files/downloads/Bewilligung_Swissmedic_Verz._a-b-c-f.pdf

GMP Certificate:
http://simec.ch/files/downloads/GMP_Certificate_Simec.pdf

ISO Accreditation (Pharmaceuticals and Chemical Products)
http://simec.ch/files/downloads/ISO_17025_Simec.pdf

Area of Applications:
https://www.secolive.admin.ch/sas_files/STS-0443-de.pdf

HGH testing is done as "individual sample testing"

AAS....well I think they are very capable according to their accreditations listed

 

[janoshik]

...

Glad to have you over here!

They indeed appear capable of testing AAS properly, unlike HGH, but they themselves list their methods as non-accredited and non-validated.

 

[ProfessorX]

Glad to have you over here!

They indeed appear capable of testing AAS properly, unlike HGH, but they themselves list their methods as non-accredited and non-validated.

Right

I think each report has that printed (non validated....something similar)

These are "individual sample testings"......and not sample(s) in que by reputable PHARMA, Co.

As far as HGH samples....I personally had good service with Dr A....but I have seen some issues when Matt----- did the testing

But still, SIMECs results (mg - IU) seemed better than the AAA (mg - IU) results

 

[janoshik]

Right

I think each report has that printed (non validated....something similar)

These are "individual sample testings"......and not sample(s) in que by reputable PHARMA, Co.

As far as HGH samples....I personally had good service with Dr A....but I have seen some issues when Matt----- did the testing

But still, SIMECs results (mg - IU) seemed better than the AAA (mg - IU) results

Yes, they definitely can't afford to be using methods that are at the very least not validated with customers who can afford to sue them.

I'd not expect them to get accredited for testing illicit hormones, but at least validating their methods is the basic good practice and respect towards customers.

Otherwise there's no way to know that the results are reliable.

I have not had the pleasure with Dr A, but Mr. M96SS had some talks with him regarding the performance and behavior of Mr. Vogt.

He seemed to be more pleasant to deal with than Mr Vogt, whose manners and performance I'd rather not comment about.


In short SIMEC used good method in bad hands and AAA was bad method in possibly good hands - that's how I look at it.

 

[Doug_S]

I agree with u 110% but I guess what I was trying to say that some members would view the testing/results with a great deal of skepticism.

Yes they would, but they are buying black market drugs. The data that mands and Dr Jim generated would be considered worthless in my professional world but that doesn't mean it does not have value. Context matters

 

[Buck1973]

Yes, they definitely can't afford to be using methods that are at the very least not validated with customers who can afford to sue them.

I'd not expect them to get accredited for testing illicit hormones, but at least validating their methods is the basic good practice and respect towards customers.

Otherwise there's no way to know that the results are reliable.

I have not had the pleasure with Dr A, but Mr. M96SS had some talks with him regarding the performance and behavior of Mr. Vogt.

He seemed to be more pleasant to deal with than Mr Vogt, whose manners and performance I'd rather not comment about.


In short SIMEC used good method in bad hands and AAA was bad method in possibly good hands - that's how I look at it.

Yes everyone there at Simec is so lovely and personable.
But in the end we got incorrect testing data and they would not do anything for us.
Muscle spent hours in discussions with those people all for not.
We got no refund . no credit, no reasonable results.
So how does anyone know wen they are gettin accurate results and not just something made up to appease or just plain wrong....

 

[janoshik]

Yes everyone there at Simec is so lovely and personable.
But in the end we got incorrect testing data and they would not do anything for us.
Muscle spent hours in discussions with those people all for not.
We got no refund . no credit, no reasonable results.
So how does anyone know wen they are gettin accurate results and not just something made up to appease or just plain wrong....

I got my own personal hate for SIMEC, Mr. Buck.

They did indeed lie about being accredited for testing hormones many times, which they are not, and the rest of what you have written.

 

[ProfessorX]

SIMEC:

the accreditation as:

Testing laboratory for Chemical and Microbiological Analysis of Food, Pharmaceuticals and Chemical Products


So.....I'm confused....how are they not accredited for testing hormones (pharmaceuticals)

I realize they do not specialize in protein analysis (Proteomics)

I get that....but hormones or pharmaceuticals....yes?

I just want to make sure no "shade" is thrown at Millard or AnabolicLab beings they use SIMEC

This lab is a licensed lab......an individual sending in a Tablet, Powder, or Finished Oil is considered "personal testing".

It's just a simple 100-200£ semi-quantitative or quantitative test that SIMEC is more than qualified to test, no?

There's is no accreditation for testing a random sample from an individual other than being a legitimate licensed lab, no?


Also, I realize Bucks frustration with them

After the introduction of AnabolicLab...it seems they were overwhelmed with samples

I believe they were frustrated at times also (but still not an excuse for Bucks issue)

Dr A was no longer available for me

 

[janoshik]

SIMEC:

the accreditation as:

Testing laboratory for Chemical and Microbiological Analysis of Food, Pharmaceuticals and Chemical Products


So.....I'm confused....how are they not accredited for testing hormones (pharmaceuticals)

I realize they do not specialize in protein analysis (Proteomics)

I get that....but hormones or pharmaceuticals....yes?

I just want to make sure no "shade" is thrown at Millard or AnabolicLab beings they use SIMEC

This lab is a licensed lab......an individual sending in a Tablet, Powder, or Finished Oil is considered "personal testing".

It's just a simple 100-200£ semi-quantitative or quantitative test that SIMEC is more than qualified to test, no?

There's is no accreditation for testing a random sample from an individual other than being a legitimate licensed lab, no?


Also, I realize Bucks frustration with them

After the introduction of AnabolicLab...it seems they were overwhelmed with samples

I believe they were frustrated at times also (but still not an excuse for Bucks issue)

Dr A was no longer available for me

There is no ultimate accreditation to test "everything."

Being accredited for doing one things does not automatically make you accredited for doing another. Even I am accredited for some lab work and providing the results.

1. In private emails SIMEC employees claimed that they ARE accredited for testing AAS and HGH.

2. In the result sheets they provide they don't claim the method is accredited for HGH or AAS nor VALIDATED. Validation is the basic requirement for the data to have some sort of value.

3. When they were confronted by Mr. M96SS about their claims, they quickly reverted to claim that they are not accredited for testing HGH and AAS.

4. In older email to Mr. rAJ they claimed they buy standards from "time to time" and in reponse to bad data they had provided to us they claimed they prepare "fresh standard each time." etc...

Number 2 is easiest to look up, lots of their result sheets floating around.


Testing AAS is easy, except some that might be more problematic than others (looking at you, oxandrolone). However, testing HGH is not hard either, if you have a company worth millions and people educated in the field - and we all know how that turned out. There's literally YEARS of publicly available data of SIMEC screwing up. But what sponsor would complain when their HGH tests as massively overdosed? I've talked to a few and they were aware of SIMEC providing screwed up results for YEARS.


The issue is not whether they are or they are not capable of testing something - it's that they used to claim they have the accreditation for very specific testing when it was suitable for them and it's used as an argument for the quality of their work.

With that I'm implying they and their advocates were routinely misleading, if not straight out lying, in order to get business.

 

[janoshik]

And there indeed is accreditation for testing stuff like UGL pills etc.

There's a lab doing it in city where I come from, I might ask them for details, but they don't accept private customers, only Slovak companies and Govmnt institutions.

 

[ProfessorX]

And there indeed is accreditation for testing stuff like UGL pills etc.

There's a lab doing it in city where I come from, I might ask them for details, but they don't accept private customers, only Slovak companies and Govmnt institutions.

I do remember when Dealing with Dr A.....he did have to order new 'standards' for both AAS and HGH

But this was 2014-2015

When they got swamped with samples....things changed. (Matthias - Vohgt)

So yea...I see what you're saying

Also, I think I see what you mean by accreditation for 'street drugs'

Kinda like a 'harm reduction' (DanceSafe MDMA)

As always, thanks for the useful info