posted Wed, 12/11/2013 - 00:39
3748
+ 5 Pro chem - Underdosed gear
ad
Hi guys, so here is a mass spec done on the all famous pro chem and i would like your feedback as to what 1ML actually contains, is it 68% OF 200mg/ml (138mg) OR 68% OF 300mg/ml (200mg).
The results say to me that it is dosed at 200mg/ml but only 68% purity making it 138mg/ml. otherwise it would say 99% purity dosed at 200mg/ml right?
Thanks for your feedback and also tell me what you would do if you were the source in this position selling underdosed gear?
Ordered from:
- Bookmark
- 5
- 0
Angus has confirmed with me that it is 0.68 of 300mg/ml, which would make the concentration slightly over 200mg/ml.
This is the second time we are in this situation juicememore. When you contacted me about your bad feelings towards Fuerza-Labs ETH-300 that you purchased from me, I asked you what would you like in replacement and you wanted the Pro.chem Testenate 300, which I gave to you and sent an extra vial in good faith.
From the PM discussions we have been having, I have offered you a very good deal on pharma grade amps, because it seems to me you want something that is 99%+ purity, which you will most likely not find in any UGL's. Alternatively I offered you store credit.
As for Pro.chem they are now closed down for good and not making anything again. I cannot take something up with a lab that no longer exists, but I have already replaced them with a much better lab, namely; Med Tech Solutions.
Bottom line is these results are not great at all, but are generally considered acceptable in the UGL game. I did send you an extra vial, so that did technically make up for the missing 0.32 purity.
My offers still stand, but as for reimbursing you for a few hundred pounds when you only bought 2 vials of Fuerza-Labs ETH-300 to begin with...
juicememoreAs i have said angus confirmed with me differently, as for why i do not know. But its just bad luck i get not once but twice bad gear or is it bad source. If you dont want to take responsibility for the products you sell then that just makes you look bad. You said in a pm you dont tolerate underdosed ugl's so whats up with that now? I understand pro chem is no longer in business or whatever fine, but then fuerza should pay for the blood test if not you for their bunk gear. And either them or you should be refunding my £60 worth of 2 vials. How can you expect somebody down £200 to want to spend even More money with the same source?
Taking responsibility or make the lab take responsibility is what a good source should do when they proclaim 'they dont tolerate it' or dont make those kinds of claims.
If you misread the results or didn't understand angus the first time round, I suggest you PM angus again and he will confirm with you that it is 0.68 of 300mg/ml, giving a total concentration of slightly over 200mg/ml.
You will never find a UGL that consistently produces 99% purity, so there has to be a level of acceptance when to draw the line with UGL's. It is generally considered that with UGL's anything above 0.60 is considered acceptable, anything above 0.70 is considered good, anything above 0.80 is considered excellent and anything above 0.90 is considered freeking hoorah! If you want 99%+ you will most certainly need to go with pharma grade, as you will very unlikely find this in UGL's.
So having said this, if a UGL I stock consistently produced products below that of the UGL acceptance level, I would immediately STOP STOCKING THEM! I most definitely don't want to sell shit to my customers, I want my customers to Develop Muscle and get BIG, or achieve whatever their goals are. This is what my aim is! I am one of the only sources that gives out cycle advice and answers everyone's questions. I get on average 100 emails a day with questions like this. If I didn't care about what I'm selling then why would I bother answering to everyone's questions about their cycles?
juicememoreSo the results should read that it IS dosed at 300mg/ml but the 68% purity means only 200mg/ml is present/available for use. They should not read it is dosed at 200mg/ml because it isnt, 3000mg per 10ml went into the vial and it WAS dosed at 300mg/ml right, but the quality of powder means that the purity is low and brings down the useable content to 200mg.?
I just cant comprehend that you think 3 UNDERDOSED vials from what you claimed then was 'the best there is in UK' is ok to compensate £60 on original gear and £90 on a blood test. Let alone the mass spec I had to pay for to prove its underdosage.
It seems to me that you need to do a bit of research on UGL's, You have to remember that this isn't Tesco or Argos here, you can't just kick up a fuss when the gear isn't bad and expect/demand a refund or compensation. I will always refund/replace/credit/exchange/compensate if I do sell a poor vial. I don't make the shit, I simply am a reseller! And I do try my very best to treat my customers well.
Like I have said already, I will sort you out on a great deal for pharma amps, as you will get the 99%+ purity you are hoping for with this!
juicememoreThe only reason im kicking up a fuss as you call it is because they were supposed to be a good replacement for an already previous bunch of bunk gear and also because i have had to pay for the lab test and blood test and neither you nor the lab will contribute to that as if the gear being bunk is my fault which its not. I simply wont spend any more after having spent 200 for nothing but 200mg/ml test e. Its unreasonable do you not agree?
The lab test was for your piece of mind! If the results came back poor I would have compensated you for everything including the lab test, but the results didn't come back poor. The results came back average. But in the spirit of good will I have offered you either store credit or a good deal on pharma grade amps, because I don't like to leave my customers with sore feelings.
You obviously don't understand the concept of UGL's or bothered reading my previous comments in this thread about purity levels, or done any research on the matter. Hence you seem to be kicking up a fuss. I can imagine you are going to be having the same issue with other UGL's you try in the future.
Just out of curiosity what do you think would be reasonable compensation?
juicememoreOk fine so pro chem dont exist no more you cant hassle them about it, you claimed they were the best but there 300mg came out at 200mg. the lab test was 'for my benefit'? minus that off then, i previously had 3 vials before i started using it then stopped and now have 1 and a bit vials of 200mg/ml test e which cost me £150. Thats just a bit messed up
Oh and i like this > ' If the results came back poor I would have compensated you for everything including the lab test, ' What about when my fuerza came back poor, did you compensate me for everything then or just send replacement vials plus 1, leaving me £90 down and 'feeling sore'. Then more sore when i found out they arent even close to 300mg, not even the standard 250mg that most test e is dosed at. If you dont want to pay up for prochems 'average' dosage then ok cool ill get over it. but if you dont want to pay up for fuerzas either then could you not contact them or something? i understand you dont make the stuff so what am i supposed to do? just accept 3 vials of 200mg for £150 and let it go? Come on.
At least compensate for the blood test or get fuerza to as they are the reason behind this whole mess in the first place are they not
I can't keep going over the same thing with you juicememore, the results are NOT BAD! This means that the gear is good and you can use it with confidence.
YOU shouldn't use UGL's in my opinion, because you are certainly going to be giving other sources the same hassle, these results are very common in UGL's. You bought 2 vials of Fuerza Test-E for £60, then were later sent 3 vials of Pro.chem Test-E in replacement for free. Now I'm offering you store credit or a deal on pharma amps... Would you like me to bend over also?
juicememoreYou didnt read a word of what i last said at all. i said fine forget about the pro chem?? forget about the results of them 200mg fine whatever ill use it but for you to try and let me take the cost having to test the bunk fuerza isnt right. you or them i dont care who but i will not lie down and take 3 replacement vials underdosed or not for £150. What part of that do you think is right or fair being such a top source?
angusWhoa! I made a mistake here and didn't get back around to catching it and I'm sorry.
I told juicememore that the dosage was 68% of 200mg/ml
I told MuscleDevelop that the dosage was 68% of 300mg/ml which makes it 200mg/ml
WHOOOOOPS! my fault and the confusion is because the mg/ml was calculated this time by the lab which it usually isn't. I had answered a PM to the source telling him that I made an error and had told Juicememmore it was 138mg/ml it is because that is usually how we do things, but upon further investigation I realized I was incorrect but never got back around to telling him that. I feel awful for that. What clued me in was the definitive wording for dosage. The Dr usually gives generality for dosage. ie: it's about 300mg/ml. This is because it was dosed properly but the purity brings it down. I will be more careful in the future, and make sure the lab stays consistent. My apologies to all.
So normally the report would say that 300mg/ml is about right.
As for the rest of the argument that is going on, I have nothing to do with that.
juicememoreThanks for clarification my man
FR sent buddy
Mate, you've skipped a lot of information about this incident. You didn't mention that he sent you a free vial (which would really compensate for the under-dosing). You also never mentioned about the pharma-grade deal.
This story is becoming less and less on your side.
juicememoreRead my review on his page, i did mention all about it. not that is really relevant. what is relevant is that he has sent out crap gear twice in a row and ive had to foot the bill for testing both labs. I dont want to spend any more money with this person at all! he either offered £30 store credit OR reducing pharma amps from £5 down to £3.80. Neither of those options particularly seem fair considering he sent this:
MuscleDevelop
Nov 17th, 2013
I will refund you if the results are poor! what was your order number?
If these results aren't poor and for it to have happened a second time then customer service aint in this guys dictionary.
Been there and done that with this same ugl from this same source as well.. Sorry for your bad luck bro. Lesson learned just like me.. Move on is my suggestion as I did.. Glad I did for sure and very happy I did.. Peace out bud..
i appreciate when people have tests conducted - and i appreciate those conducting the tests.
it seems that it would be useful to report the concentration of the active ingredient. in the report above, it states "the concentration is at 200 mg/mL".
the concentration of what? i believe this is the source of the confusion.
maybe as a bottom line, explicitly state the concentration of the active ingredient. i.e. the concentration of testosterone enanthate in the sample is 136 mg/mL (or whatever it happens to be).
at the end of the day, the dosing of the active ingredient is what we really care about, and including this in the reports would eliminate a lot of confusion.
keep up the good work guys!
It is 68% purity of 200 mg/ml so under dosed average purity
No no no no no. Purity dose not equal concentration.
An oil-based substance can be extremely correctly dosed and still have a 50% purity. Conversely, it can be very under-dosed by a factor of 1:3 and still be of 98% purity.
Purity, in the context of these tests, measures how much of that oil-based substance (excluding the carrier) is of the active ingredient. Low purity is an indicating for degraded esters, presence of lipids, or some contamination. It doesn't, however, mean that the product is under-dosed.
However, in this case, the purity of the original powder seems to have been very low, and the lab didn't compensate for it by increasing the planned dosage, which resulted in a low final dosage.
Bottom line: The product is advertised as 300mg/ml and it turned out to be 200mg/ml. That's clearly under-dosed. The likely reason is due to impurities in the original powder. The purity indicated in test is not related to concentration/dosage.
Note: Please take source discussion to the source discussion section.
juicememoreRight but if it is dosed at 200mg/ml then how much of that 200 am i getting if its only 68% pure. I cant be getting all 200 surely?
I'm sorry, but I cannot explain it in simpler terms. Somebody else might be able to phrase it in an easier way.
To answer your question, yes it can be all 200mg/ml. If the mass spec says (well, deduced from the mass spec results) that the concentration of the ester in the whole substance is 200mg/ml, then it's 200mg/ml.
Purity measures how much of the whole substance (excluding carrier) is the actual ester.
Those are two different things.
Actually, I'll try to make an analogy, and hopefully it won't suck.
Imagine that you have a 1ml glass of water. Then you fill it with 300mg of 100% pure sugar (Grade A). Keeping in mind that you made sure the sugar isn't contaminated, and the water is distilled sterile water, then you'd have a sugar solution of a concentration 300mg/ml with 100% purity. The purity can be calculated by excluding the carrier (water), and examining how much of the rest is sugar. In our case it will be all sugar.
Now, let's say that your sugar is 50% pure (Grade B. There are contaminates and destroyed sugar particles in it). If you add 300mg to the 1ml of water, you'd effectively have a sugar solution of a concentration 150mg/ml. However (and here's where it gets tricky), if you add 600mg to the 1ml of water, you'd end up with you'd effectively have a sugar solution of a concentration 300mg/ml (correctly dosed for our case), but with purity of 50%. Again, calculated by excluding the carrier (water) and examining the rest.
juicememoreIt is 68% of 200mg. So If you are pinning 1ML then you are getting136mg/ml.
Delete message
Taken from a pm by angus. So confused on what to believe now though
What this would suggest to me (although I don't really have much knowledge on this) is that you are getting 200mg/ml. I would guess the lab assumed 99% purity which would be 300mg/ml, but with powders that are only 2/3 of that make it 200mg/ml instead. So instead of 99% of this powder being the hormone only 68% is. These purities line up almost exactly with the expected and actual dosages, so that's my reasoning for this.
juicememoreSo pro chem either did know it was only 68% and failed to put 'more in' to make it up to be 300mg/ml or they didnt know it was 68% and expected it to be 99% and just put 300mg in and hope for the best and that it isnt impure at all to bring it down to 200mg. Hmm. Strange that i verified with angus for it to be 136 and he agreed, yet he must have been mistaken somehow.
Lemme put my .02 in. Disregard what the label says. Forget about that for now. It's accurately dosed at 200mgs per ml. Meaning the "company" measured out the 2000mgs of powder per 10ml hence 200mgs per ml. The vial was compounded with the correct "volume" of powder. It's the Raw Powder thats the issue. Most "companies" do not do mass spec testing on their powders so the under dosing is due to the raw powder being "cut" with 32% of inert powder. The "cut" is most probably from their powder supplier. You would need an additional 32% of raw powder to get 200mgs per ml of "usuable" or "active" compound. Unless the 200mg is a typo, then the label is incorrect also. Again, this is not uncommon for UGL. None of this is regulated. It's just the risk we all take, and the "company" for that matter, when buying gear and powders.
PURITY (68%) At 200mgs of powder per ml, 136mg per ml is active ingredient
vs
POTENCY 200mg of powder (volume) was used per ml
Yes, the scenarios your proposing are likely. However, I'd lean towards the first one. I always assume that labs in this business know exactly what they're doing. They want profit, and they want more of it.
As for the message from Angus. Hey, man, I don't want to step on anybody's toes. I respect Angus, a lot. I could be wrong as well. I presented my view on the matter, my knowledge, and the way I see this.
If somebody has a different idea, then they're welcome to present it.
In the end, one thing is true for sure (bound to the authenticity of those tests, of course): What you have is an under-dosed gear. The source should have reimbursed you for it. The source should have taken this directly to the lab as well.
juicememoreHere here!
AssUhlAccording to that test it is dosed at 200mg and the 200mg has a 68% purity so basicly 2ml would be around 250mg equivalent so judge your injections off of that.
juicememoreRight so 1% = 2mg? 68 x 2 = 136 mg/ml yeah? Thats what i thought, thats what angus verified with me, then md has spoken to angus and now its changed back to 200mg/ml so just wanted some second opinions on this. As the prochem was a replacement for bunk fuerza which i done bloods for. All MD is offering is £30 store credit for my £60 on gear £90 on bloods and £50 on mass spec.
Anon68% is still good gear. Not great but it's still good. So the label says 300mg?
juicememoreYep label is 300mg/ml
It looks to me like its 100mg underdosed wich is not cool and I am still trying to piece together the purity part. So is ti 32 % impurity?
Im sure Angus will chime in but.......there's 200mg of compound present. At 68% purity, theres only 136mg of "usable" compound present. 32% is inert or "cut". It seems it was labeled at 300mg. So mislabeled and underdosed, not uncommon for UGL. This is why I test a lot of my stuff.
juicememoreI am hoping he will too as he first of all agreed with me that it was indeed 138mg/ml then MD has said something to him to what i can only assume was to verify again and now its 200mg/ml...
Well according to the test it's 200mg total compound but only 136MGs of active compound. Meaning it's only really 136MGs per ML of Test E.
juicememoreSo MD is wrong then and probably didnt even check with angus at all lol
Oh I don't know anything about all the that j. I'm just saying what I see with the Mass Specs you posted. I'll let Angus chime in. He would be better at explaining the results. Sometimes all the MG vs Purity gets confusing and he can break it down for you better than me.
juicememoreThanks for the feedback man
AnonLooks to me like its underdosed a bit.posta be 300 but is at 200
In actuality 68% purity is considered good or not bad... a very common level of purity
Id use the hell out of it
Anything above 80% is considered great
Take it from someone thats been in it for a long time 68% is still good gear
juicememoreIts disappointing to say the least after MD bigged up pro chem so much as top ugl for uk, and here is a quote from the man himself concerning previous bunk gear he sent me: "if you're concerned that the gear might be under dosed or bunk then i'd say get your bloods done. I will always refund/credit in full for anything like this. I don't tolerate ugl's under dosing and if you showed me a report which suggested it, I would make sure fuerza compensated for it." so my question is why can he not make sure pro chem compensate for it, ive spent 60 on gear from MD, 90 on a blood test for fuerza, then 50 on mass spec for the pro chem, and MD offers me £30 store credit, no money back for testing his products no money back for the underdosed stuff. i thought better of MD but hey what can you do..