• coleman85's picture
  • BASIC
  • 1
  • ANABOLICLAB totally wrong results!

  • coleman85   •   Tue, May 17th, '16 05:21   •   32 replies, 3789 views

In the beginning AL was a good source for me
to see what works and what is bad stuff. But results in the last time are very suspicious...
At first they start testing Shree Testo P with 31mg/ml instead of 100. On a polish forum a guy sent the same batch to Simec and result was 96.8mg/ml.
Then they tested a product from Bayer Healthcare Androtardyl which doesn't exist on the market anymore. Next point, they've tested Pharmacom Test E 300 with 363mg/ml Exactly the same batch was sent to Simec with a result of 284mg/ml - Batch the same, analyse date nearly the same. Now Malay Tiger Oxy 50pcs/50mg-tab the've tested with 21mg. Another forum sent same sample / same batch last week to an ISO certificated Lab . They tested 53.2mg/tab.

So my question . Why are so much differences between AL results and other results.
Is AL trustful?

Comments

  • showstoppa's picture
  • REG
  • 21
 
  • showstoppa
  • 3 years ago

Millard baker runs meso and Anabolic Lab, Imo if millard was corrupt he wouldnt post the donations and from whom and he wouldnt set a goal. Millard has been in this game since most here were un elementary and has shown himself to be very trust worthy over the years. I am not saying he is immune to critisism, because money talks. But from the donations that post, he isnt skimming as the number of lab test pretty much mirror the donation as we know the cost of the test.

But simec is accreddited and so is chemtox. The sample sent to them must be unopened. Both got similar results and both labs will verify.

Im am sure alin could be right about marigin of error, i dont know and he knows way more about it than me, but both labs are acrreddited and both are more than willing to verify the sample was sent unopened and verify the results. To me the accredidation means something as does the openness of both labs. And if there was some huge margin of error than how are they accreddited?

Honestly i dont trust any results that dont come from simec or chemtox. The other lab test could be faked, spiked, etc. I trust millard over some random person on a message board as he has been open from the beginning about everything. I also know neither lab is risking their accredditation for a payout from a steroid dealer. The amount is miniscule in the grand scheme of their business.

As far as same batch number getting different results, how do dilligent is the source with changing batch numbers? Did they combine powder from mutiple shipments and not mix using geometric dillution? There are many factors that could cause different results.

Anabolic lab is a great resource but like alin said, find a lab that is working for you and use them until you start having problems. And if Shree had nothing to hide why did they go around pretending to be other labs and why have all of yheir products consistently tested bad? Why are they claiming to be pharma but located in an abandoned warehouse? Ehy are they so damn shady?

I have given alin a hard time in the past about a bunch of stuff but he claims balkin is pharma grade and so far the lab test back that up and then some. Same with genza. And blood results back up the claims. Couple ither labs are the same.

Pharmacom has had mixed resukts which is similar to their bloodwork results. I really like frank and darius and the way they run their business but they have quality control issues no matter how much they claim they do not. Anadotal feedback, blood work, lab test and even lab max prove this to be the case.

I really wish they could test more domestic ugl especially the ones from here, anabolicb and a-s. This where i believe the biggest differences lie.

  • ashop's picture
  • SRC
  • 568
 

Hi,

I will repeat myself:

Millard is not corrupt. SIMEC is not corrupt also. The only problem with SIMEC is that they try to make a simple method that cost less and they seem not to have not precise balance with enough zero after point. So their results can anytime show a GOOD PRODUCT that is half dosed for example ( I know a source who had this problem with them as I said in a earlier post ).
But they are VERY GOOD for us, they are not ANGUS and they are not scamming. Also they are willing to work and learn from masters how to perform cheap and perfect analyses.
You have them with a error margin and you have guys who use MASS SPECTOFOTOMETER and scam people with BS methods

Laboratory at the university where I do my analyses is willing to share methods with SIMEC in order to train them. SIMEC is listening and they will do this at the end of the summer ( now SIMEC is moving then they are in summer holiday )

So for moment take SIMEC results with a grain of salt but they are very good for informational purpose. If you see your brand tested bad with them please read again my post and do your own judgment

Ajax

  • HailRazor's picture
  • EXP
  • 1408
 

We've (trusted source and myself) tested SIMEC by using:

The Source's Testing Lab for API (powder purity) GC/MS

One of my Labs I use (E----- T--) for API (powder purity) GC/MS and Finished Product (LC/MS/MS)

After dosing the finished product according to both of the Lab's findings and sending the finished product to SIMEC (HPLC).......the SIMEC results reflected (give or take a milligram or 2) what the other 2 lab's finding were. (Powder Purity = Finished Product Mg dose) SIMEC's test result seemed to be accurate.

I think with the UGL's having different carrier oils, BA, BB, super solvents, etc.....this can add to the variance in results.....the SIMEC testing is a basic (Semi) Quantitative test.

SIMEC is a legitimate lab.....but....there is always a possibility for error with the amount of testing that is done through SIMEC. Any questions about the test results can easily be resolved with an email using the Test Report Number located on the Assay sheet. Can't get anymore transparent than that.

There seems to be even more confusion with the comparison of some Lab results to Blood Serum results. These Serum results (10 X rule) don't always reflect the vial dose (Mg/mL) accurately.

There will always be "questioning" of AnabolicLab because of the nature of the Black Market Biz......I don't question their intentions though

Keep in mind the Lab is testing what is being sent to them. In the UGL/Black Market, batch no's sometimes mean very little.....even with a "Big" UGL brand

At the end of the day.....its way mo betta than having it tested at some unknown university (unaccredited)

  • enhancedlife's picture
  • LVL2
  • 171
 

This is a great post bro. I honestly trust AL. Do I think the results are perfect ? Well of course not but I do believe they are fairly accurate and when you see one UGL consistently testing well.. You should stick with them. I literally only run GP PC AP and POG.. The best results of my life. If you check the labs on them they are all within 10% or so. You cannot argue against lab test.. Blood work .. And your own results. Obviously it all adds up.

  • showstoppa's picture
  • REG
  • 21
 

Thank you and you are exactly right. AL is perfect but is by far the best we have had since operation raw deal shut down san rafael.

As far as blood work and the 10x rule, from what i have seen how you split shots and other individual factors play a big role in this. There is a new study that shows the 10x rule is essentially BS.

The only way to know is either send a vial to simec and have it tested or use straight from the pharmacy test and then run blood test on yourself. For me i am prescribed trt and i split my dosage into twice a week shots at 75mg per shot. On my script test i test right at 5x total weekly dose or 10x my last shot at 48hours post injection. Last three times doc tested i was between 675 and 750 everytime.

To me the whole point of AL is to force sources to step their game up. Make them test the raws and the finished product. Honestly its less than a thousand dollar investment for a source per batch which is nothing for an established source. People should reward the sources that do this and punish those that dont comply.

  • i20bpm's picture
  • ADV
  • 488
 

What other labs did shree pretend to be

  • showstoppa's picture
  • REG
  • 21
 

Genza i think and some others on the comments section of anabolic lab. Its still in the comment section over there. It got to the point the other labs had to release a statement.

If you goto the lab testing section on mesorx and go to page 6 of the section at the bottom of the page is where the testop results were posted. Millard lays out all the info with screen shots on what they said and he had the samples retested just to make sure the result was correct.

  • i20bpm's picture
  • ADV
  • 488
 

Oh so you mean shree sent in samples of somebody else's gear claiming to be theirs?

  • showstoppa's picture
  • REG
  • 21
 

No they were posting saying they were genshi(sorry not genza like i originally stated) saying that anabolic lab only worked for money etc etc. Well genshi released a statement on their official website saying this was not them and they supported the efforts of AL. Shree has been caught in a bunch of lies. Not all their gear is underdosed but a ton is. I encourage you to read the thread on meso.

They also posted on there website that they had a conflict with AL and AL had a vendetta against them and they are a registered fda licensed pharm in india. All fucking lies

  • i20bpm's picture
  • ADV
  • 488
 

Crazy

  • showstoppa's picture
  • REG
  • 21
 

Not really, these labs will do whatever they have to so to keep the money flowing in just like any other drug dealer. There are some truwly good guys that are sources here and else where but many are just in it for the money.

  • i20bpm's picture
  • ADV
  • 488
 
  • i20bpm
  • 3 years ago

If they aren't equipt with the right lab equipment and are getting results that far apart then imo i wouldn't trust anything that comes out of simec. Real labs with up to date testing equipment ie. mass spectronomy will have results %99.999 acurate every single time. I don't know of any equipment that would have that big of a margin of error these days.

  • ashop's picture
  • SRC
  • 568
 
  • ashop
  • 3 years ago

SIMECH methods are not perfect, they need to improve but no other solution now. They are the only ones who test and have basics at least.

They have a error margin that can be pretty big. Someone tested to them ( his products not mine ) and come out very low dosages. This guy ( source friend ) sent me his samples and results were good. We contacted SIMECH and we found their mistake ( it was a balance that was not accurate enough something ). SIMECH admited that they dont guarrantee their results but they will meet with the guy who tests for me to improve their method. For moment they move their laboratory and they are busy but soo they will fix. So for informational purposes they are good,.they have the grounds just they need extra precision. So if a result from them that you think is not correct is very possible. But guys are open to improve their methods..they will be better.

IS NOT ANABOLICLAB fault is just laboratory error margin what you see

To be sure you buy good stuff stick with the brand you had good results

Hope this helped a little

  • HailRazor's picture
  • EXP
  • 1408
 
  • HailRazor
  • 3 years ago
  • @ashop

There are many post from YOU stating SIMEC is the only lab that tested AAS properly

Now their methods are just basic and not perfect?

SIMECH admited that they don't guarrantee their results

Do or Do Not they test according to PH. EUR. (European Pharmacopeia) USP Standards?

It's not that they do not guarantee the testing.....it's the fact that samples are sent via individual customer and not COC (Chain of Custody) and most (samples) are not produced/distributed via GMP/GDP regime - GMP Compliant Analysis

Basically, we are sending opened/unopened vials/tablets for testing.....not a pharmaceutical controlled type testing....but.... they are still doing a legitimate test. They passed our test of sending finished product using another labs API %purity (Raws) SIMEC was right on the money with the mg/mL results

but they will meet with the guy who tests for me to improve their method

Dr. Andreas Sigrist (SIMEC)

Company management, head of quality assurance
PhD in chemistry, University of Karlsruhe (Germany)
10 years of experience in pharmaceuticals, food and environmental issues with a focus of API development, organic synthesis, analytical chemistry and validation
GMP and QA expert
At Simec AG since 2005

So "your guy" has more experience than Dr. Andreas Sigrist or the rest of the Team at SIMEC (combination of almost 100 years experience) ?

Accreditation:
http://simec.ch/files/downloads/ISO_17025_Simec.pdf

Steroids

http://simec.ch/files/downloads/Swissmedic_No_Objection_Certificate_Steroide_Teil_2.pdf
Steroids

http://simec.ch/files/downloads/Swissmedic_No_Objection_Certificate_Steroide_Teil_1.pdf

Just want your expertise on this so I know not to waste my time, energy and money with this lab again since they do not meet your standards or "your guys" standards

They (SIMEC) are the only ones who test and have basics at least.

That's not true at all. There are Toxicology Labs within the U.S. that will test INCLUDING dose (mg/mL) and % purity

GC/MS
LC/MS/MS
UPLC-MS/MS
HPLC

  • ashop's picture
  • SRC
  • 568
 

HailRazor I never posted something I can not backup. Please read and learn that they are pretty good but they have errors. I NEVER SAID SIMEC IS BAD but as you see down here my lab found errors on their labs.
I never had any problem with them personally just wanted to keep you guys here informed that they can make mistakes. Nothing else.

They are willing to learn and to improve, thats great and important

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Simec
Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 12:45:44 +0300
From: 1 <1>
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>

February 26

Dear XXX

let me explain our situation:

We offer analyses for anabolic steroids since few years. And the intention was, to test the samples for private users for their informations. But in the meantime we get many samples, often from people which collect the samples from their customers and sent them at once to us. That is indeed a good thing, but we need time for doing our work accurately.
We are a quite small laboratory, most of our work is GMP analyses for pharmaceutical industry. Because of this we sometimes have to wait until we can start steroid analyses, because HPLC devices (we have 3 of them) are occupied.

Best regards
Matthias Vogt

February 26

Hello

let me clarify some general things:

1.) Results, which differ from the wishes of the customer often appear - in most cases there is not an analytical error. Of coures we will check if there is a problem at our side - we are very interested in finding and eliminating errors. Normally customers are aware of the possibility, that results may differ. Even same samples may differ between 2 labs - every method has its measurement uncertainty, and we made tests ONLY FOR INFORMATION for private people. We never did some GMP analytics for quality assurance. You can compare results ONLY when they come from exactly same methods. Otherwise any comparison is nonsense.
If you want to have a GMP analysis which is suitable for quality assurance, we have to validate the method for each product. That's not a problem for us - but there will be costs from 5000-10000 EUR for each method to validate. So yor are welcome to give us such an order.

Because we did not perform these analyses according GMP, we did no GMP work (SST, specifications) and there are no GMP documentations.

2.) We generally offer our services for steroid samples only for private persons for test the products they want to consume. We do NO quality control for producers of this products (see item 1, validated methods would be necessary). Our reports are not meant as a certificate of analysis for distributers or companies. It's meant for information of the users of these products.

3.) Testing steroid samples is not our main business. We offer this service for private customers for their information. 99% of our other customers are pharma and food companies in switzerland and europe. So I am very busy with other things, I cannot stop all of them and start with this things.

Best regards
Matthias Vogt

Am 11.03.2016 um 09:02 schrieb XXXX XXXX@XX.com:

Dear Matthias,

It has been a month since we're trying to figure out what happened to
the previous analyses.
I understand that you might have a lot of work and that you are very
busy, but it looks more like you're trying to avoid us.
The fact that you haven't sent us the chromatograms and methods makes
us think that you don't have them.

SENT: Friday, March 11, 2016 at 10:37 AM
FROM: "Matthias Vogt" matthiasvogt@simec.ch
TO: "XXXX XXXX" XXXXX@XX.com
SUBJECT: Re: kalp Samples

Dear XXX

here the raw data for C39967, 39968, 39979 and 39980 (C39973 is not
available at the moment, because the data I do have not here in lab
but at home at my home-office - so will send you later)

First part are chromatograms and calculation sheet, second part are
handwritten rawdata

Best regards
Matthias

Am 2016-03-14 09:56, schrieb XX XXX:

Dear Matthias,

Thank you for the sent data.
We've studied the sent data and here is what we have to say about
Methandienone.

  1. According to your handwritten rawdata, the weighting was done with
    a weighting-machine that shows 6 digits after comma. The fifth and
    sixth digits are irrelevant because they are never accurate.
  2. You've weighted 9 mg for the preparation of the standard. Such a
    small quantity gives very large errors. Usually 50 mg are taken for
    the preparation of samples for quantitative determination, according
    to the European Pharmacopeea.
  3. Two determinations were made for dosing of 10 mg, and two
    determinations for dosing 50 mg. According to your records, the
    calculation is based on the determination of % of the active substance
    in the tablet mass. I assume that later you've calculated the dossage,
    based the average tablet weight and % of active ingredient (this
    calculations are not in your rawdata).
    According to your calculations, you've obtained 4.1165 % and 6.8732 %
    of active substance for dossage of 10 mg in 2 determinations, meaning
    5,006 mg and 8.358 mg for an average weight of the tablet of 0.1216 g.
    Then you've considered the average between these two results and
    obtained the dosage of 6.68 mg. According to our requirements we must
    do at least 3 determinations for the quantitation, and calculate the
    RSD. If the RSD is higher than 2%, this means that the method of
    determination is not working.
    In your calculations, the deviation in determining is far beyond.
  4. You've indicated in the chromatogram that along with methandienone
    you've found oxandrolone. Please find a spectral distribution for
    oxandrolone according to the wave length in the attachments. As you
    can see in the picture, oxandrolone has almost no absorbtion at 240
    nm.
    In our experience of working with oxandrolone, his occuring is very
    small even at lenghts where he is seen (200,210 nm).
    One needs to take a large sample of the active ingredient to get a
    pronounced peak.
    We assume that you've considered an auxiliary component (whose hold
    time is very close according to the chromatogram) or a colorant
    to be oxandrolone.

We'll come back with further analyses.

Regards,
XXX

Dear XXX

see my answers below.
Sorry, I am ill and not in the lab at the moment, only answering e-mails
from home-office

Weighing of about 9 mg indeed is not good which we surely can
optimize. We do not perform the steroid analyses according Ph. Eur, btw.

These requirements never were told us. We surely can do these, but
the price will increase significantly. It would lead into a method
validation. We can do this, but this also will cause costs and needs time.

I will see tomorrow when I am back at work what I can do.

Thank you for your helpful suggestions

Best regards
Matthias

Am 13.05.2016 um 08:10 schrieb XX XXXX XXXX@XX.com:

Dear Matthias,

I would like to start by wishing you a great weekend.
I am writing to thank you for the nice job you do for people who care
about their health.
It's very important that users have a reliable and trustworthy
company, to check the products' quality with.

Here at our lab, we are doing the same thing - making sure that the
quality of the tested products is good.
Yet, there are still differences in test results that you do and that
we do, from time to time, and we still haven't figured out why they
appear.
Both of our labs are more than competent to reach an understanding in
testing methods.

You told me last time that you don't perform the steroid analyses
according Ph. Eur and that you had no knowledge of the requirements
for quantitations and calculation of RSD, which you could do, but the
price would increase significantly and it would lead into a method
validation, which would cost.

You also mentioned that you are a quite small laboratory, having only
3 HPLC devices, which are frequently occupied because you have a lot
of work to do.

I would like to mention that we are a small laboratory as well, with a
small staff. Yet we managed to develop methods and ways to provide
accurate tests and results for our clients, for fair pricing. Your
prices are pretty considerable, and for that you could provide a more
accurate result, not needing more money

What I am trying to say is that, we would like to establish a
collaboration with you. We would like to share our knowledge and
experience, and I am sure that such a collaboration would bring a lot
of benefits to both of us. We can provide you with our ways of doing
analyses, methods, quantitations etc. and show you a way to do that
without any additional expenses.

Would you be interested in having an exchange of experience? We could
send one of our professionals to Switzerland so that we could meet in
person and work side be side on certain tests.

I believe that labs like ours, could benifit a lot from such a
collaboration, but most importanly, the clients would benefit a lot
out of it. This would lead us to not having differences in results
anymore.

Please share your thoughts about this with us.

Regards,
XXX

SENT: Tuesday, May 17, 2016 at 10:31 AM
FROM: "Matthias Vogt" matthiasvogt@simec.ch
TO: "XXXl XXXX" XXXX@XX.com
SUBJECT: Re: Samples

Dear XXX

thank you for your e-mail, it's really appreciated.

A collaboration about experience and methods is a really good idea, I
am always open to it. It would be a good way to improve our quality, I
really would appreciate it.

Our lab will move to another location in a month, so at the moment we
are bery busy with arrangements for this removal (it is really much
work.....)
We will be there in July 2016, I think it will be end of July.

Please let me know if you agree with me so far, so we can coordinate
the next steps.

Best regards
Matthias

  • HailRazor's picture
  • EXP
  • 1408
 
  • HailRazor
  • 3 years ago
  • @ashop

Excellent reply. This is the response I was looking for. This is what I was stating above (previous reply)

Dr Andreas was who I dealt with when I first started using SIMEC (2014 / MD recommended) Matthias is doing most of the private testing as of late

With the introduction of AnabolicLab....it seems they have become very busy (overwhelmed) with random AAS/GH samples from private customers

Matthias stated:

Results, which differ from the wishes of the customer often appear - in most cases there is not an analytical error. Of coures we will check if there is a problem at our side - we are very interested in finding and eliminating errors. Normally customers are aware of the possibility, that results may differ. Even same samples may differ between 2 labs - every method has its measurement uncertainty, and we made tests ONLY FOR INFORMATION for private people. We never did some GMP analytics for quality assurance. You can compare results ONLY when they come from exactly same methods. Otherwise any comparison is nonsense.
If you want to have a GMP analysis which is suitable for quality assurance, we have to validate the method for each product. That's not a problem for us - but there will be costs from 5000-10000 EUR for each method to validate. So yor are welcome to give us such an order.

This states it PERFECTLY. The €260 price for a (semi) Quantitative test is just a basic test for private customers. In the U.S., a basic identify, quantify test can start at $1000 and go up from there (for 1 sample)

I wasn't putting you on the spot about SIMEC (maybe just a tad bit :)..but wanted your honest opinion on some of the more recent results we are seeing from SIMEC (mainly Dose - mg/mL - IU)

We've sent samples to SIMEC to "test the lab" and compare to other lab results. The results were all similar (mg/mL - purity %)...but....we did this when AL was just introduced

I think a disclaimer should be added to the AnabolicLab website maybe. Just to educate members (including myself) on what to expect from this basic test for the private customer. As we've seen in the past (ANGUS) and now with some of the SIMEC results...they can "make" or "break" a source.

Being able to get the Full Report is a plus, but unfortunately most private customers cannot decipher the calculation to "double check" Matthias's results.

Everyone's focus is on the mg/mL number or the purity% number.

Transparency and More Info (as you've posted here) would help

Thanks A

  • showstoppa's picture
  • REG
  • 21
 

Great reply razor and alin. Really appreciate the info.

  • enhancedlife's picture
  • LVL2
  • 171
 
  • enhancedlife
  • 3 years ago
  • @ashop

Reasonable response. If you're getting results just stick with it.. It's not that hard of a concept.

  • coleman85's picture
  • BASIC
  • 1
 
  • coleman85
  • 3 years ago
  • @ashop

sounds reasonable , so we'll see ! thank you for this nice information mate.

  • Deathstroke's picture
  • BAN
  • 303
 
  • Deathstroke
  • 3 years ago

Where are these other results? I would like to see

  • coleman85's picture
  • BASIC
  • 1
 
  • coleman85
  • 3 years ago
  • @DHulk

not allowed to post other forum links in here , last link got deleted

  • Rustyhooker's picture
  • EXP
  • 3781
 
  • Rustyhooker
  • 3 years ago

Could be a money talks issue.

  • i20bpm's picture
  • ADV
  • 488
 

Your probably right, i've seen other inconsistensies that make me scratch my head that i won't mention on the open forum

  • j1980's picture
  • LVL2
  • 144
 

Yeah so have I.

  • dudebro's picture
  • LVL2
  • 154
 

It always seems to end up that way even if it's started with good intentions.

  • Rustyhooker's picture
  • EXP
  • 3781
 

Greed. Seeing the funds pile up for an Angus report.

  • dudebro's picture
  • LVL2
  • 154
 
  • dudebro
  • 3 years ago

Wouldn't surprise me at all if AL was corrupt.

  • Athlete126's picture
  • LVL2
  • 160
 
  • Athlete126
  • 3 years ago

Why are you asking when in the title you are putting it off like they're the wrong one?

  • coleman85's picture
  • BASIC
  • 1
 

'cause I don't understand why the AL results are completely different to others!
And look to the donations, he had overnight 4,000$(February 2016) LOL