posted Sat, 05/24/2014 - 02:20
7287
+ 13 MASS SPEC Biologic Pharma Test Prop done by Angus
ad
Here you guys go... MASS SPECs on the test prop I recieved from Biologic a few months ago....
These tests come straight from the man Angus himself...
I think the results speak for themselves...
Ordered from:
- Bookmark
- 13
- 0
my malamutes piss has more testosterone in it than bio bunk, what a joke, ill say this, you popped your head too far up in a world your not ready for, your like a nom, prospect or apprentice who wanted it all too soon, you need to go back to the drawing board and put in your work first, its became so bad now im feeling a bit sorry for you, i mean that......
my malamutes piss has more testosterone in it than bio bunk, what a joke, ill say this, you popped your head too far up in a world your not ready for, your like a nom, prospect or apprentice who wanted it all too soon, you need to go back to the drawing board and put in your work first, its became so bad now im feeling a bit sorry for you, i mean that......
thankfully hes gone now. good riddance i say, this guy was nothing but problems.
Loose_Cannon+1 for the test brotha I'm glad more ppl are beginning to get tests performed to keep these sources accountable
Biologic1Why did you hide the rest of the results? Why are you posting only one analysis? Mass specs for the tren a were 73%.
More importantly, you need to learn how to read results. Here is the proper way to look at he facts, according to Angus:
"Here is what I (Angus) see brother:
50-60% is average. Most UGL's fall in this category
60-70% is good
70-80% is great
80-90% is Rare
90+ is pharma grade and very few fall into that category."
Based upon the evidence my gear ranges from average to great. Furthermore, my test powders are going to receive very close scrutiny. I will have them up over 70% on my next batch.
A purity score of 73% is considered "great" by Angus. How is that fact "cancerous?"
Look at the empirically verifiable facts, stop allowing emotion to drive your thinking.
Anon80-90 Is far from rare
Quite common you should take a look
And some of these ugl are testing over 90
Bro seriously Wtf...
Im not hiding shit! I posted exactly what Angus sent me for the bogus test p you sent me...
Results for tren a will be posted tomorrow when I can post another pick...
Accuse me if hiding shit from people... I don't think so bro....
Your the one sending out bogus gear and making threats...
It's pathetic...!
Biologic1Sorry, my friend. I did not mean to disparage you. Run your tren a with confidence.
Please look at the ranges supplied by Angus.
Your gear is legit. T prop is legit, with average impurities. Tren a is, according o Angus, great.
Let me know when you run across tren a with a higher purity level.
Can you please tell me how I threatened you?
.
You haven't threatened me but you have threatened others on here and to accuse me of hiding results is bogus... Why would I hide results after taking the time pay for shipping and submit samples of gear that I paid full price for... It makes no sense...
Im not hiding shit do don't accuse me of it...
Biologic1Easy killer. I forgot that you changed your handle. If I had seen akro, I never would have criticized you.
I just did not understand why you posted the mediocre results instead of the great results. .
Then again, how could I forget that ass on your avi. I must be getting very old.
Let me know if you find any tren ace that is 100 full mgs with a purity score over 73%, for less than $48.
Do you want the tren a I was going to send you to replace the bottle you sent to Angus?
I will not ship, but I can have someone else send to you. Just step back and think: You have very good tren, Is that not the ultimate goal of all this vituperation?
Loose_CannonI'm tired of you going around and saying that your 73% purity score is great or your other was average. Stfu just because Angus gave you a scale of what he normally sees from his tests doesn't mean us as users should be ok or have to settle for those scores. Please just leave already if you haven't noticed yet no one wants you here, no one will buy your gear. What kind of a deal is prop that scored 56% purity for $25 that's a joke.
Edit: let me give you a comparison, I just had another labs prop tested and it came back at 93% purity and he sells that in 10 mls for $25. Why would anyone buy from you with all your security issues/baggage when they can buy high quality prop from a respected src for the same price so stop acting like your hooking us up with your shit prop
^this
If 50-60% is average then I will be doubling my dose unless there is proven mass specs. This is also why I won't pay some of these high prices that sources re charging. There is only one source who's prices are justified by countless mass specs coming back in the 90s
angusI think he's talking about the other test. I'm not sure that he knows we can only post one a day. Simple misunderstanding.
Biologic1Correct.
RustyhookerYour list is garbage. Bait n switch. Just like those genuine fake knockoffs sorta hgh in wrong bottles....um...ya.
Biologic1It is not my list. It is Angus' intellectual property.
He has seen thousands of analysis.
What study are you citing when you claim that that the average ugl produces gear that is in the high eighties to 90th percentile?
How did you compile your data set? Was it properly constructed to ensure that his findings could be extrapolated to a larger population? What empirical measures did you use to ensure both validity and reliability.
What empirically verifiable evidence do you have to prove that your ranges are representative of all ugl labs?
angusThat was a list that I threw out there because he wanted to know how his gear stacked up. It is just a generalization of what I have seen through the thousands of tests that I have run. I'm not defending him, as I know nothing about him but I can say that the public only sees a small portion of the mass specs. It's unfortunate really but it's true. When bad gear comes along (which happens often) it never gets posted. If a user ran the test then they usually go back to the source and he responds with replacements and the report is discarded. If a source runs a test with bad purity they sure as hell aren't going to post it. So all we really see are the good ones. While I may not be able to post other peoples labs without permission I can tell people what I see as a generality. Which is what we have here. If people ask me who carries the best of a certain product I will tell them. If someone asks me who is the best lab I will tell them. If someone asks me if they should buy this product from Biologic I would simply say there's better places to buy it.
Yes sir !! Thanks once again Angus !!
angusAnything for a man in a leotard. (Richard simmons)
RustyhookerVery respectable answer sir. You've always been a real dude. Thank you
angusThanks brother. Much respect right back at you. You are a very smart guy and I love reading your stuff. I give you much credit for helping a lot of people.
Biologic1Thank you for all you have done, it is greatly appreciated.
However, Rusty insists that the average ugl produces gear that is in the high eighties to 90th percentile.
In short, he rejects the validity of your ranges. You have a great deal of experience in this matter. How did Rusty get his data set? Was it properly constructed to ensure that his findings could be extrapolated to a larger population? What empirical measures did he use to ensure both validity and reliability.
He would need to structure his study properly, in order to prove that your ranges are not representative of all ugl labs.
This study would be brilliant, IMO. One would need random samples and then mass specs for 100's of labs to reject your hypothesis.
How do these labs produce gear that is as good or better than pharmaceutical. What is their secret?
RustyhookerThe sources i use all hit over 80% on finished product.
Sources i use don't threaten us with hotpacks and call the cops.
Sources i used do not post peoples personal info. BUT YOU DO.
Biologic1The list is not mine, it is a direct quote from Angus. You are thus saying that Angus is garbage. You need to learn how to read labs. Data means nothing, bereft of ranges.
56% is average, 73% is great.
As mentioned train yourself to interpret data, because you are showing ignorance again and again.
Here is an analogy: You run labs, and get results. One is cholesterol. Your cholesterol is 150.You do not look at ranges, you only respond emotionally: "150, oh man that is one and a half times 100!"
You stop all weight training, and do only cardio. You become a vegetarian.
On your next visit to your doctor, you have lost 30 lbs muscle and proudly state "I bet my cholesterol is good now, doc."
Your doctor states "it was already very good. 150 is 50 below the cut off for healthy (200) assuming your ldl and hdl ratios are good.
RustyhookerBullcrap! REAL sources are selling gear all above 80%. And your tren reference, seveal sources test regularly near or above 90%.
Snake oil salesman.
angusthere are 3 sources right now on eroids that are consistently above 80% (of the ones that I have tested).
Biologic1Good point. How many hundreds of sources are there on eroids? To be sure, ugls would be screaming that stat, so there are probably not a lot more than 3.
That means that about 1-4% of all sources score that high. What percentage consistently score over 70%?
More than 3% I am sure. I bet the number is not much more than 15%.
This would be an awesome study: We need to figure out a way to get a fairly large number of representative samples. We need to figure out a way to get gear from end users (thus ensuring that the gear is representative of what is sold, not ringers that are much more pure than their normal products).
We can take samples from the top guys and gals, samples from mid to upper tier ranked ugls, samples from the middle, and samples from the lower tiers.
We could then generate reliable and valid scores that would do 2 important things: 1, compare averages from the big dogs to the smaller dogs (the 5 listed above) and more importantly, develop ranges that accurately and reliably generate average numbers.
This project would be a wonderful resource for members. They would know what is good, and what is not so good.
Generating empirically valid ranges that can be extrapolated would enable consumers t make much more wise buying decisions.
A bi-product would be that srcs would know these facts. They would know that consumers are cognizant of purity ranges, and will demand higher scores. Labs will then be forced to improve the purity of their products. In fairness, they should also charge more for higher purity.
Right now the anecdotal evidence behind thousands of labs has the average set at 55%.
Would it not be great if these numbers moved up?
SQUIRREL!! LMAO. Aww man this guy here, eh. First the gear came from a Real Lab with a Real Chemist producing it. Then it's from China and BIO is just putting the stickers on the bottle. It's actually quite the soap opera if you read his SI thread from start to finish.
RustyhookerI wish i could copy/paste from bio si page where he suggests Dorian uses ONLY his bio oil.
Lmao!
Biologic1What???? Where did you get his gem?
Dorian ran 3 pharm sus a day, and a bottle of pharm var/day.
This was 20 years ago, before China became a source for raws, before the explosion of ugls. 20 years ago there were much more available pharm sources, especially in Europe. You could take a trip to Thailand and get anything you wanted straight from the pharmacy.
I am trying to stay off this board, but you are so ignorant I have to reply.
RustyhookerIt was your comment you made on your si. No wonder your IFBB buddy needs mega doses. 56% of a gram a week is only lil over 500Mg.
So if Mr ifbb runs 3000/week hes not even at a beginner stack in dosing.
You haven't replied to any of my posts... :(
Biologic1I am sorry. Not that I am avoiding you, I have just been inundated with posts that needed immediate responses.
Over and over again, posters do not even understand the basic difference in regards to purity vs potency.
I think you said something about metals. We use glass and hoods. We autoclave. Looking at the extant evidence, the impurities in the test prop are not metal based, they come from elsewhere. IME metal causes pip. My t prop has no pip, so the evidence strongly suggests that there is something else at play.
I will get to the bottom of this, not for this board, but for myself and my locals.
As stated 56%, while average, is not acceptable. I need to hunt down the source of the problem.
I thank my time here. I learned about mass specs and impurities. I always thought that the primary measure was potency
I lost quite a bit of money on this board, but that is OK, since I can use that info to improve my product.
What has happened here is OK, life will go on just fine without me selling steroids via this forum.
people that are full of shit like this guy generally don't like to hear the truth lol. too many good sources here to even consider this guy so i wonder why he's still here.
I'm going to read it now :-) this is interesting.....
:)) I don't know about you, but I always prefer a little dose of Heavy Metals (lead,tin,mercury,arsenic) in my gear. That PIP tells me it's Good Chit! >_<
epcfitnessI am thankful for having been entertained reading the si while having my lunch :-)
Thanks for sharing the test results. The only thing this source can GAURANTEEd is that he is a cancer to the eRoids community. Didn't he post up some bogus MS Test results on his SI thread awhile back? Hmmmmmm.
Without an actual MS Test result posted it means nothing to me.
This was BIO's post.
I was discussing mass specs with my partner, who is way smarter than me, but also very hot tempered. He does a shit ton of business, almost none of it on the web. He does not have the temperament for the internet.
He was following all the drama on our start up here, and about 3 days ago he said to tell everyone here to take a long walk on a short pier, lol.
Fortunately, I did not take his advice. But like i said, he is smart. I told him that we have a mod here who has recommended a trusted member to run the mass specs. He said "lets get our own mass specs done, before we send gear in. We need to know 100% first before we send".
We recently ran specs on our T 300. It came back at 278. We retested another batch, and the results were the almost the same. So yes, it was very slightly under-dosed. However it has always been smooth as butter.
To compensate, it was made stronger. However, the stronger version had a bite whereas before it was pipless. We are confident that our new batches will be at 300, and i can personally guarantee that it is smooth. Our T 300 is my test of choice. Once the 20% off promo is over, we are going to move the $55 price down a bit for eroid members.
OK, now here is the problematic area. We sell Tren e 200, and it is an awesome product.
We did a mass spec and the first result was 180. We retested, and this time the score was 255!
That worries me, and here is why: If both tests came back at 180, I would just move the price down $5. However what concerns me is why did we get such a large variation? Yes, they were different batches, but there should not be as much variation. We are taking this discrepancy very seriously.
We have a real chemist (PhD) who is at the lab at least one day a week, and we expect him to get to the bottom of this matter.
AS mentioned, we will be sending samples in to a trusted member of this board to run mass specs. My plan is to just reach into a bag full of 20 bottles of a certain compound, turn my head and pick.
RustyhookerHotplate brew.
Backyard BBQ brew.
RustyhookerHe openly threatened Angus on meso as well. And here on his si page. This guys a fking piece of shit!
Didnt you, Flash, and myself call this out months ago? We tried to warn everyone.
AnonLmao
Pro bb using this fire
No wonder they pin alot
L.O.L !!
Don't play funny buggers here sir, I hear Steven Seagal brewed this batch himself
Jokes aside, credit for testing, regardless of all the BS.
+1
Anonabsolutely
hunteron20s56% is 56mg per ml correct ..so way under dosed ..great report ..+1
Biologic1No. Purity and potency are separate. A compound (like test p) can have its full potency, but an average purity score, like 56%. The tren ace scored 73%, an excellent number for a ugl.
The main problem with impurities is that there is more chance that they have impurities like metals.
IME, metals are what cause pip. This fact is ironic, as I have never gotten pip from my test p. I expected it to score higher. Ironically, I thought my tren a might score lower than my test p.
I no longer use tren. However, a 73% purity score is great (using Angus' word).
If there are Heavy Metals in the raws that YOU are using (commonly found in Chinese raws) then you should be hung from your nut sack. Heavy metals would show in MS Testing via a 'spike' and ANGUS can confirm this. PIP is usually caused by BA/BB ratios or EO, etc. You picked the wrong Steroid Review Board to come and peddle your BullShit!
Metals found in raws are acquired during the manufacturing process. This is because of using metal mixing hardware instead of glassware (metal mixing containers lined with glass)
RustyhookerIt can be dose at 100Mg but high in Impurities. So actual hormone per cc....yup. Low