posted Mon, 06/23/2014 - 07:48
5024
+ 19 Hulks Test Prop Mass Specs
ad
Thank you Angus for all the testing you've done for me..
Long report....I was hoping for better results regarding hulks prop....if anything this always helps in adjusting dose to acheive optimal results.
Ordered from:
- Bookmark
- 19
- 0
+1 for testing tthanks for watching out for the community
RustyhookerFanboys came out tonight!
Crap happens. To anyone.
¤grabs popcorn¤
extra butter?
RustyhookerTwo bags full! Bulker food....
Dr. BannerNachos on the side? Just saying I like nachos and cheese. Buncha Crunch with some Goobers too
RustyhookerLmao! I can't chat bout food on eq. Dammit I'm hungry again....
epcfitness.
some guys have actually done just that in the past. It's up to the person sending the sample to make the call. But I agree that is the best approach.
Where is the proof that the sample tested was actually from Hulk ?
What sort of fucking proof would you like?
Mr.pumpX2
Nothing else to say doucgebag ?
Why should I have anything else to say ... You aren't saying much ... I want an answer to my question ... Would you like 99transam to video tape himself when he sends out his next sample for testing ? But then You'd probably call into question the legitimacy of the recording. Oh I know ... A signed and notorized affidavit ... Would that suffice? Would you be asking your question if the report had come back with favorable readings ? And how come you haven't brought this up on other reports posted recently ?
You are truly an idiot ! That's all the proof I need
Right here in my pics bro...Thats about all the proof I can give you
https://www.eroids.com/pics/hulks-test-p-and-tren-a.-as-usuall-mass-spec....
As it turns out this was all for nothing! But I appreciate your sane response unlike some
Other douchebags on here.
angusThis product is accuratley dosed actually. This was just brought to my attention and I'm at the gym but I will go into detail shortly.
I find this VERY troubling when the report clearly states otherwise.
You are the only person on here separating fact from the bullshit claims raw suppliers and labs are making on a daily basis. I really hope your explanation does not harm the integrity of your reports. Especially when its over the purity of fucking test prop. I can't wait to read it.
Loose_CannonAgreed
angusI get it, I really do. All I can really say is that through the years I have developed a sense of trust and I would never do anything to jeopardize that. The only thing I have is my word and I put the full explanation below for anyone to read. Anyone that understands mass spec can look at that and see that it makes complete sense. Please remember that we do these tests to protect the user and not the source. Sources come and go but we, as customers, are constant and that is where my loyalty lies.
Loose_CannonI get that I really do I just want the validity of these tests to be 100% honest and true because these tests can make or break a source. Just don't want your reputation to ever come in question in regards to if tests are being purchased by sources or what not I'm not saying you would ever do that but these thoughts will pop into members heads. In reference to reading mass specs I have no idea how to do this so I just trust the summary of purity and dosage, I know for the most part when us customers send in samples you have no idea what lab they are coming from and that's how it should be it was just weird it was posted then banner contacted you and then you stated it was a mistake but mistakes happen so I'm glad you explained yourself and once again this community appreciates your services
angusSending you a PM.
Thanks for the explanation and your efforts. Many folks get understandably testy when they think that sources are protected. This was a simple mistake and you took the time to explain it. You also have your reputation to fall back on, which is excellent. Thanks for all your help and efforts in helping us the customers make informed decisions.
Dr. BannerThis test is done by angus so this report is by angus... so I don't understand the confusion. Mistakes happen guys. Angus took the time to clear this up.
The man that would know right here
Dr. BannerThank you Angus.
angusMy apologies to banner first of all, and thank you for bringing it to my attention. Here is what happened with this particular lab, when we ran it the first time we got some numbers back that didn't make any sense and the machine was cleaned and recalibrated. Since Banner is a high profile source we wanted to make sure that we were very thorough in our testing and left no room for error. So what you see as the result of the concentration (mg/ml) is one of the passes we made with the test. We did a total of 3 and they are listed inside all those pages. That is why the test results are so long.
Anyway, all ions are either positively charged or negatively charged. When a mass spec is run the machine is told to collect either positive or negatively charged ions but cannot do both. This gives us the ion count that also makes up the concentration. In most samples we assume that there is ABOUT the same amount of positives as negatives, which is why the reports are always vague such as "100mg/ml is about right" or "300mg/ml is overstated by half" etc. etc. On this particular test we wanted to know exactly so we made one pass looking for positively charged ions and found about half and another looking for negatively charged ions and found about half. What you see as the last page in the report is only for one of those and not both. I sent him the wrong page. I could have sent him 3 summary pages, two saying it was 50mg/ml and one saying it was accurately dosed or a single summary page. I chose a single summary page and it was the wrong one. I didn't even realize it until it Banner messaged me about it.
So the moral of the story is 65% isn't all that great but it is accurately dosed and I'll send the correct page for posting.
I wish there was someone else to check and balance the testing. Not saying your lying Angus... We have all of our eggs in one basket here and its a recipe for disaster.
I hope this doesn't come across wrong... I am just saying. You have completely changed this game with the testing and it is much appreciated.
Dr. BannerMistakes will always happen. Nothing is foolproof so that is why he ran it 3 times or more to take the average.
Forsure
Michael3655Thanks angus!
Thank you angus for clearing this up!
BillLumbergh+1. shitty. purity is one thing, bad batch of raws can and frequently does happen it seems. being half dosed is fucked.
Not the results we wanted to see +1 thanks for the testing bro.
This is extremely upsetting coming from Banner. Hard to believe but tests don't lie. +1 for getting it tested.
Not good. Hopefully Banner will take notice of this and start testing all his raw's again like he used to.
Maybe he will start dosing it right?? instead of half of the advertised dose on the bottle.
Good point.
Okay purity is good... Not great or amazing but the fact that it is under dosed is pretty sad.
Damn that's disappointing! +1 for specs
Wow..surprised at the numbers coming from Banner. +1 for testing bro
Surprising results tbh. +1 for testing
wow. so you need like 2 and half cc to get 100mg?!?! thanks for the labs +2
Yup....I'm starting to hate 100mg compounds...Unless it's dosed at 90-100%...Which Im getting the idea that they hardly ever are....your never getting what you really need. A cycle like this would fall flat on it's face.
lol thnks for keeping these sources honest. you service to this community is greatly appreciated
Wow.
+1 for the testing. Thanks bro we really appreciate this.
Wow that sucks man. +1 for testing
Loose_CannonWow not good. +1 for the test
+1
disappointing it's about 1/2 dosed what it's said to be