this is why I don't agree with raw sampling. telling any source you want a sample to test before placing a bulk order is going to portray bogus results. It just seems like plausible deniability in a sense. Someone says they don't feel anything on your gear, and you reference the lab tests you've posted, which ive already seen done multiple times in a short period. Most people don't have the money, don't care or don't think its important enough to get blood work done on cycle, or by any means, get the gear they actually purchased lab tested.. I think the only thing you should be testing is your final, wholesale product. after you make 500 vials of a compound, post the lab results of it.. because otherwise, I dont think referencing a lab test like this proves anything except the source that sent you a sample has good raws before you make a big order and they cut it to shit.
let me ask you, in the link above do you feel the subject was shooting 90% purity test? thats pharma grade, and about 200mg of watson a week (ive seen) put people at 1800 test levels..
is it even 60%? referencing other suppliers lab work to blood work ratio, a 70-85% pure compound is putting people at 7000-8000+ in terms of test levels. And let me conclude by saying im not trying to argue or be disrespectful so no arrogant response is needed. honesty and modesty go a long way in my book. just agreeing to disagree
I see your point..... and it is a valid one. But, the converse of it also is exactly as you have stated... If labs are done on a random sample of the lot produced from the raws.... then who is to say that one was any better or worse than the next one? Even the mega pharmas... Johnson and Johnson, Bayer, Merk... all test their raws PRIOR to production AND test the final product... but a SAMPLE.... there is no way to test every ounce..... every vial. So, it is on faith I take asprin, and Crestor and Avapro and the pharma meds. That logic holds true here too.... Hell, Hulk is SHOWING you the raws data.. the big boys dont!
Dont get me wrong.. you have a valid point.. but it is lost in the fact that in order to validate your hypothesis... every raw and finished product needs to be tested...
In summation, i hear ya... I understand.. and believe you. The reality is Hulk is going a step beyond and at least showing you the raws they purchase.. from that small sample and the faith they are using that raw.. is of a high quality.
Please.... lets discuss in an intelligent and educated and polite manner and I am open to discussion!
Beaker
been keeping it education this whole time buddy. but you ignored the link which validates my hypothesis.
you have a valid point.. but it is lost in the fact that in order to validate your hypothesis... every raw and finished product needs to be tested...
there is no point in testing samples compared to a final product, not sure how you don't see that. We can't compare this to "big pharma" companies either. You're comparing apples to oranges my friend although it is your line of work, this is the world of UGL's. Why? because they are specially synthesized raws and act under whatever FDA GMP etc etc standards they are held too, which IM SURE requires testing the raws and logging the data. I don't think Watson, Sandoz, Pfizer is poking around asking suppliers for samples because they're looking for the best quality, they are merely testing to making sure everything is on point..
-testing a raw, doesn't reflect on the final product. there is a post by a source in general talk warning people of a company who runs multiple sites selling raw materials, come to find out they were cutting their primo with acetone and some compounds weren't even distinguishable raws.. BUT I bet if you go ask that source for a sample to be tested you'll get the purest raws they can produce! bottom line, you request a sample and tell them its going to be tested, you're going to get the best they can offer. They have your money, and you just placed an order for multiple kg of everything, they might decide to cut the shit out of it.. so now that "sample raw" that was so good, is now possibly dirty, a contaminant etc. HUMAN GREED my friend, no lab test can account for it and it has proven to be a benefactor time in and out. If all the raws weren't being cut, there would be no reason for people to buy human grade amps, pharma grade gear etc. Hell, they'd just run bottles of UGL gear that costs $50, why pay for $14 amps or $200 without a script for test?
there is no need to test raws unless it is in bulk amounts.. why? because UGL's brew in bulk amounts, not by 1 bottle at a time. and i'd still be wiling to bet if he goes to this same supplier again and orders say 3 kilograms of Test, not a crazy amount, it will come back at least > 10% deviation of this lab test.. my pockets are pretty deep if you think you can take my money ;)
Bottom line: this source has established a reputation and climbed to the top, im not arguing against the source, or against you - im just suggesting a different method. If they test every final product of the bulk batches they do, that will provide ultimate reassurance to not only me, but everyone else!
You can't compare a liquid to a tablet unless of course the tablet is first produced as a liquid. Say you take powder that is 100% pure then add it into your BA along with a powder that is 50% pure. You'll end up with a liquid that as long as it holds properly you'll have an end product that is 75% pure. This is why liquids are always the same dose from mL to mL and tabs and caps will always vary
98 and up? never knew raws could be synthesized at 99+% pure. you must be breaking the laws of science...why dontcha go work for Watson, im sure they'll give you a bigger bathtub to work in
Joosemanhttp://www.eroids.com/pics/week-10-of-hulkbody-testmasteron-cycle-testos...
this is why I don't agree with raw sampling. telling any source you want a sample to test before placing a bulk order is going to portray bogus results. It just seems like plausible deniability in a sense. Someone says they don't feel anything on your gear, and you reference the lab tests you've posted, which ive already seen done multiple times in a short period. Most people don't have the money, don't care or don't think its important enough to get blood work done on cycle, or by any means, get the gear they actually purchased lab tested.. I think the only thing you should be testing is your final, wholesale product. after you make 500 vials of a compound, post the lab results of it.. because otherwise, I dont think referencing a lab test like this proves anything except the source that sent you a sample has good raws before you make a big order and they cut it to shit.
let me ask you, in the link above do you feel the subject was shooting 90% purity test? thats pharma grade, and about 200mg of watson a week (ive seen) put people at 1800 test levels..
is it even 60%? referencing other suppliers lab work to blood work ratio, a 70-85% pure compound is putting people at 7000-8000+ in terms of test levels. And let me conclude by saying im not trying to argue or be disrespectful so no arrogant response is needed. honesty and modesty go a long way in my book. just agreeing to disagree
Dr. BannerBrother this was taken from a 2kg batch of powder. I wouldn't call that a "small" sample.
I see your point..... and it is a valid one. But, the converse of it also is exactly as you have stated... If labs are done on a random sample of the lot produced from the raws.... then who is to say that one was any better or worse than the next one? Even the mega pharmas... Johnson and Johnson, Bayer, Merk... all test their raws PRIOR to production AND test the final product... but a SAMPLE.... there is no way to test every ounce..... every vial. So, it is on faith I take asprin, and Crestor and Avapro and the pharma meds. That logic holds true here too.... Hell, Hulk is SHOWING you the raws data.. the big boys dont!
Dont get me wrong.. you have a valid point.. but it is lost in the fact that in order to validate your hypothesis... every raw and finished product needs to be tested...
In summation, i hear ya... I understand.. and believe you. The reality is Hulk is going a step beyond and at least showing you the raws they purchase.. from that small sample and the faith they are using that raw.. is of a high quality.
Please.... lets discuss in an intelligent and educated and polite manner and I am open to discussion!
Beaker
i used to work for johnson then to baxter then to ......
Joosemanbeen keeping it education this whole time buddy. but you ignored the link which validates my hypothesis.
-testing a raw, doesn't reflect on the final product. there is a post by a source in general talk warning people of a company who runs multiple sites selling raw materials, come to find out they were cutting their primo with acetone and some compounds weren't even distinguishable raws.. BUT I bet if you go ask that source for a sample to be tested you'll get the purest raws they can produce! bottom line, you request a sample and tell them its going to be tested, you're going to get the best they can offer. They have your money, and you just placed an order for multiple kg of everything, they might decide to cut the shit out of it.. so now that "sample raw" that was so good, is now possibly dirty, a contaminant etc. HUMAN GREED my friend, no lab test can account for it and it has proven to be a benefactor time in and out. If all the raws weren't being cut, there would be no reason for people to buy human grade amps, pharma grade gear etc. Hell, they'd just run bottles of UGL gear that costs $50, why pay for $14 amps or $200 without a script for test?
there is no need to test raws unless it is in bulk amounts.. why? because UGL's brew in bulk amounts, not by 1 bottle at a time. and i'd still be wiling to bet if he goes to this same supplier again and orders say 3 kilograms of Test, not a crazy amount, it will come back at least > 10% deviation of this lab test.. my pockets are pretty deep if you think you can take my money ;)
Bottom line: this source has established a reputation and climbed to the top, im not arguing against the source, or against you - im just suggesting a different method. If they test every final product of the bulk batches they do, that will provide ultimate reassurance to not only me, but everyone else!
1jakd_hipyYou can't compare a liquid to a tablet unless of course the tablet is first produced as a liquid. Say you take powder that is 100% pure then add it into your BA along with a powder that is 50% pure. You'll end up with a liquid that as long as it holds properly you'll have an end product that is 75% pure. This is why liquids are always the same dose from mL to mL and tabs and caps will always vary
Got to give it to you banner, your showing consistency, this is huge IMO.
93% purity is garbage I get 98 and up for everything when I homebrew.
Jooseman98 and up? never knew raws could be synthesized at 99+% pure. you must be breaking the laws of science...why dontcha go work for Watson, im sure they'll give you a bigger bathtub to work in
98% purity? If your that good you should be making a killing Lmfao.
Prove it..... put up the Mass Spec
I tweaked the image link and got it to work:
http://www.eroids.com/sites/default/files/gearpic/10136/W9433TCB%20Test%...
Damn boys... with such high purity that's some gourmet cyp.
AnonDamn getting a 400 bad request error. Good shit tho hulk!
Yeah me too...