MESO-Rx Sponsor Primal Pharma - US Domestic

[Photon]

if gcms shows it’s domestic primo I will send out one of my vials I received to see if dosage is consistent

Just buy an extra vial and send it for GCMS and HPLC. There's no minimum spending requirement and testing gets reimbursed.

I see so many hounding this vendor for that Primo GCMS testing lol. Send it out today and you'll get results by early next week.

If you don't trust that they aren't selling CN Primo, then why'd you trust the GCMS results?

 

[Dial It In]

Which one? 14954?



will do if I have something constructive.

That’s the one

 

[Dial It In]

That’s the point. Why such large variances.

You too brother. The time for softness is over

 

[readalot]

That’s the one

Thanks for asking Jano.

I addressed your questions on concentration accuracy here.

R

MESO-Rx Sponsor Post in thread 'Primal Pharma - US Domestic'

Nov 25, 2025

1. HPLC raw testing before making batch. Request actual purity calculated value (mg API measured / mg sample measured). Not the XX%+ notation.

2. Accurate analytical balance

3. Volumetric flask for final volume on batch

All excipients can be added by mass.

Accurate densities are known as well for BA/BB. w/w vs v/v vs w/v. Avoids using density estimates for batch solution.

Accurate mg/ml on API concentration per batch.

• readalot

Addressing these points should get you within 1% error easily on batch target concentration. Of course you are relying on Jano's accuracy for raw purity. Hope it makes sense.

But let's assume raw purity testing is <= 2% error.

1 02×1.02 = 1.04
0.98×0.98 = 0.96

Batch concentrations should be able to come back from Jano HPLC testing on finished oil <=+/- 4% using these steps. Round up to 5% it you want. That is good control limit for vendor really nailing it and considering all significant and potential error sources.

 

[Photon]

Thanks for asking Jano.

I addressed your questions on concentration accuracy here.

R

MESO-Rx Sponsor Post in thread 'Primal Pharma - US Domestic'

Nov 25, 2025

1. HPLC raw testing before making batch. Request actual purity calculated value (mg API measured / mg sample measured). Not the XX%+ notation.

2. Accurate analytical balance

3. Volumetric flask for final volume on batch

All excipients can be added by mass.

Accurate densities are known as well for BA/BB. w/w vs v/v vs w/v. Avoids using density estimates for batch solution.

Accurate mg/ml on API concentration per batch.

• readalot

Addressing these points should get you within 1% error easily on batch target concentration. Of course you are relying on Jano's accuracy for raw purity. Hope it makes sense.

But let's assume raw purity testing is <= 2% error.

1 02×1.02 = 1.04
0.98×0.98 = 0.96

Batch concentrations should be able to come back from Jano HPLC testing on finished oil <=+/- 4% using these steps. Round up to 5% it you want. That is good control limit for vendor really nailing it and considering all significant and potential error sources.

I believe the main focus is variances within batches, not so much target dosing. As long as it's within 10 percent, I think most will not have an issue.

People are fine if a batch tests over or under, as long as they know what it is. However when vendor testing and 3rd party testing are all over the place, then how do you dose and what exactly did you buy?

That being said..there are many vendors here who have no issues getting both target dosing and variances testing within batches right..

 

[newguy2]

I believe the main focus is variances within batches, not so much target dosing. As long as it's within 10 percent, I think most will not have an issue.

People are fine if a batch tests over or under, as long as they know what it is. However when vendor testing and 3rd party testing are all over the place, then how do you dose and what exactly did you buy?

Exactly, at this point it seems like I need to test every vial to have an idea of what's truly going on.

 

[readalot]

I believe the main focus is variances within batches

We already covered that. If the variance within a vendor "batch" is greater than method precision for the analytical test then we know those two vials didn't actually come from the same batch. Simple.

Vials from the same batch have the same concentration barring precipitation. Period.

 

[readalot]

You guys are missing the point. Make sure each batch is accurate. That way it doesn't matter what fucking batch the vial came from. Problem solved.

Number batches. Take some pride. Etc.

 

[Photon]

Number batches. Take some pride. Etc.

They do have batch numbers.
As to how useful it is..lol

 

[readalot]

They do have batch numbers.
As to how useful it is..lol

Not sure we are aligned but tried my best. Not sure if something is getting lost in forum translation.

A batch number ties to a homogeneous lot of finished product that shares a common API concentration. One common pot. If the vendor knows what they are doing the batch to batch variance will be excellent. Every vial inside a batch has the exact same concentration.

 

[crispybacon!]

Not sure we are aligned but tried my best. Not sure if something is getting lost in forum translation.

A batch number ties to a homogeneous lot of finished product that shares a common API concentration. One common pot. If the vendor knows what they are doing the batch to batch variance will be excellent. Every vial inside a batch has the exact same concentration.

I think you are missing the point. While important, let’s not get sidetracked discussing batch to batch variance. This vendor had a single batch (claimed) that has a huge (at least 10%) variance. So either they lied about it being a single batch or their process is very fucked. If this can’t be explained, why bother discussion batch to batch variance?

 

[readalot]

I think you are missing the point. While important, let’s not get sidetracked discussing batch to batch variance. This vendor had a single batch (claimed) that has a huge (at least 10%) variance. So either they lied about it being a single batch or their process is very fucked. If this can’t be explained, why bother discussion batch to batch variance?

I covered it all. Within and between batch variance. Good luck.

Why bother? So folks can learn if they wish and be a more educated buyer.

 

[newguy2]

Not sure we are aligned but tried my best. Not sure if something is getting lost in forum translation.

A batch number ties to a homogeneous lot of finished product that shares a common API concentration. One common pot. If the vendor knows what they are doing the batch to batch variance will be excellent. Every vial inside a batch has the exact same concentration.

And here lies the problem. This "should" be the case but clearly has not been.

 

[crispybacon!]

We hear you guys.

We’ve been reading through all the constructive criticism and feedback and we’re taking it seriously. We know we’re not perfect and there’s definitely room to tighten up how we do things, from communication to testing to how we present info.

@readalot made some great suggestions that we’ll be looking to follow through on moving forward. We appreciate the time and thought that goes into those posts, it helps us improve and holds us to a higher standard.

We’re here for the long haul and we’ll keep working to earn your trust every step of the way.

Nice words… Can you provide some advice to your customers with TC250 P10 - what concentration should they assume? The suggestion surely can’t be that they should all send it in for testing.

 

[readalot]

And here lies the problem. This "should" be the case but clearly has not been.

And now folks have the knowledge and can make informed decisions based on data in hand or push for change if so motivated. Lots of work though.

 

[Dial It In]

Nice words… Can you provide some advice to your customers with TC250 P10 - what concentration should they assume? The suggestion surely can’t be that they should all send it in for testing.

We take care of our clients, and that’s always been the priority. A lot of our actual customers have asked me to stop going back and forth with the same non stop complaint crowd because it never goes anywhere and they’re never going to be satisfied no matter what gets posted.

We’re going to keep doing business as usual, keep testing, keep improving every single day, and keep supporting the people who actually run our products. The fact that we’re staying busy and inventory keeps moving tells me we’re doing something right. Are we perfect? Nobody is. But we strive to be, and we improve every day!

Here is all you need to know. Staying busy, inventory is moving blah blah blah. Perfect vs out of whack isn’t acceptable. There is no improvement as we still see significant variance. Everyone go look at raw testing for products since launch. You can probably count raw testing vs product availability on one hand. Batch numbers that never change despite new brews and so on. Stop being gear junkies and hold accountability until it’s fixed. I think they can fix this but it has to be shown. Getting gear in two-three days isn’t a good source bar and plenty of sources can do that and have reimbursement policies. I can mail you a bag of literal shit in 48 hours. Changing stories, back tracking it’s all in the thread. We have sources with higher standards in this forum. Let’s go Primal step it up be a go to source I want you to succeed. Right now you’ve got 5 customers that have verbally said they aren't coming back in this forum. Some are multi thousand dollar a year customers. This isn’t a Tik Tok bunch of ass clowns. I’m coming with reality not science.

 

[Primal_Pharma]

Nice words… Can you provide some advice to your customers with TC250 P10 - what concentration should they assume? The suggestion surely can’t be that they should all send it in for testing.

I hear you, but the idea that one blind test automatically defines an entire batch isn’t how this works. A single 220 result on a 250 label is something we review internally, but it’s not a reason to tell every customer to assume a different concentration. That would be irresponsible and scientifically wrong. We also aren’t expecting anyone to send their own vial in.

What we will do is verify our own process and tighten anything that needs tightening. We’ll also take care of anyone who reaches out with a specific concern.

 

[Matty_G]

Just tested a vail of Primal Test Cyp 250 from P10 (purchased early-September).

A few weeks back there seemed to be some confusion and discussion about which batches of test were which, as well as some mislabeled batches. I checked in with Primal who reassured me it was the batch that tested at 243mg/ml. I was frankly still feeling a bit uneasy, so I sent in a vial to verify for myself.

Test result showed a concentration of 221mg/ml, 10% less than the posted COA. While the results aren’t alarming, they are nevertheless disappointing, and have me questioning what the concentration of my remaining 3 vials are.

Hopefully, this is helpful for anyone else out there using Test Cyp 250 [P10], as you may be under-dosing slightly.

@Primal_Pharma - What is the process for getting refunded for the testing and vial? Would also appreciate your thoughts on my remaining vials and your testing process in general. How does this much variance occur Do I assume they are all 220mg?

Janoshik Analytical

View attachment 363326

Ah man I bought a kit of this September 4th along with the harm reduction TRA :-(

 

[newguy2]

I hear you, but the idea that one blind test automatically defines an entire batch isn’t how this works. A single 220 result on a 250 label is something we review internally, but it’s not a reason to tell every customer to assume a different concentration. That would be irresponsible and scientifically wrong. We also aren’t expecting anyone to send their own vial in.

What we will do is verify our own process and tighten anything that needs tightening. We’ll also take care of anyone who reaches out with a specific concern.

With repeated third party tests showing quite a different result it is hard to have any confidence that the batch numbers mean anything.

Are you willing to comment on what is likely the culprit?

 

[Primal_Pharma]

With repeated third party tests showing quite a different result it is hard to have any confidence that the batch numbers mean anything.

Are you willing to comment on what is likely the culprit?

We’re looking at more than thirty blind tests across multiple compounds and batches. Well over 96% of them have landed exactly where they should. The idea that “repeated” off results exist just doesn’t hold up when you look at the full dataset.