MESO-Rx Sponsor Primal Pharma - US Domestic

[SwolieGuacamole]

I don’t think some of you guys understand how batches actually work. When someone brings up using a volumetric flask, that absolutely does impact vial to vial variance. The total accuracy of the batch starts with how precisely the final volume is measured. A calibrated volumetric flask gives you an exact volume instead of 'close enough' and that locks in the correct mg/mL for the entire batch.

Once the batch is fully mixed and uniform, every vial you pull should be the same because it’s all coming from the same solution. If the total volume is off even slightly, the concentration is already wrong before you ever start filling vials, and that’s where inconsistencies appear.

So yeah, better volumetric accuracy does lead to better sample consistency. They’re directly connected brothers!

Isn’t this just addressing the start of the batch. And meeting the intended target dosage.

I might be missing something. But I don’t see how this addresses vial 1 & vial 2, from the same batch, testing 1-2% outside of each other.

Being off as a group is understandable. Drastic inconsistencies within the same batch is not.

 

[TanFishMan]

@maleficarum can you share a picture of your p12 batch number?

Assuming he is correct that his vial says p12, why is the color so different with the second vial of Tren colored EQ if they both came from the same batch?

 

[Photon]

@maleficarum can you share a picture of your p12 batch number?

Assuming he is correct that his vial says p12, why is the color so different with the second vial of Tren colored EQ if they both came from the same batch?

Different raws probably

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

Monday at 5:24 PM

Its gotta be something in the raw that made it to the vendors on here. Maybe they overcooked a batch of raws or theres something in it thats reacting with the carrier oil or oxidizing quick af.

Also following this subject, its interesting forsure and might give insight into the nittygritty shit going on to rush to market after that rawproduction halt

I can't speak for other vendors but for us, the finished product basically matched the raw material. The darker raws produced darker finished EQ, and the lighter raws produced lighter EQ.

• Primal_Pharma

• 

 

[crispybacon!]

Even if the concentration is incorrect, all vials should have the same incorrect mg/ml or (within a 2 percent variance) within the same batch. That's what people are asking about.

The reason for the discrepancy is because you are brewing multiple homogeneous solutions. (Multiple brews)

Sure, you can improve precision by using a better calibrated volumetric flask, but as long as it isn't a single homogeneous brew that you draw from, there exists the possibility of vial to vial variances.

Am I missing something?
@readalot

This is what I was suggesting, but sounds like I’m wrong? Again, just on the topic of intra-batch variance, not target variance. But vial to vial within the same batch.

To be specific - Test Cyp 250 batch P10 was reported at 243mg/ml. This would indicate a reasonable “miss” from the target. But I would have expected all vials from TC250 P10 to have been off by a similar amount, plus/minus a couple percent. However, I had a vial from this batch tested and it came back at 221mg/ml. This, specifically, is the scenario I am still struggling to understand. And how volumetric flasks would influence that wide variance between vendor test and my test.

 

[Photon]

This is what I was suggesting, but sounds like I’m wrong? Again, just on the topic of intra-batch variance, not target variance. But vial to vial within the same batch.

To be specific - Test Cyp 250 batch P10 was reported at 243mg/ml. This would indicate a reasonable “miss” from the target. But I would have expected all vials from TC250 P10 to have been off by a similar amount, plus/minus a couple percent. However, I had a vial from this batch tested and it came back at 221mg/ml. This, specifically, is the scenario I am still struggling to understand. And how volumetric flasks would influence that wide variance between vendor test and my test.

I'm not 100% sure either, but I think he was doing 1L brews. So if you brew 3L then that's 3x1L brews.

At the start he was saying it's all a single homogeneous solution (not multiple) tho so not sure which is correct.

 

[Ghoul]

 

[crispybacon!]

This is what I was suggesting, but sounds like I’m wrong? Again, just on the topic of intra-batch variance, not target variance. But vial to vial within the same batch.

To be specific - Test Cyp 250 batch P10 was reported at 243mg/ml. This would indicate a reasonable “miss” from the target. But I would have expected all vials from TC250 P10 to have been off by a similar amount, plus/minus a couple percent. However, I had a vial from this batch tested and it came back at 221mg/ml. This, specifically, is the scenario I am still struggling to understand. And how volumetric flasks would influence that wide variance between vendor test and my test.

Further to this, and in hopes of keeping things productive and from going off the rails…

I am also sending in a sample from each of my remaining 3 vials of TC250-P10 for testing. All else aside, I have to give @Primal_Pharma credit for agreeing to reimburse for this testing.

This testing will personally benefit me, as I’ll know the concentration of my remaining product. However, I’m hopeful that this will benefit both Primal and the community.

I’m curious to know how this information can be used? If all 3 come back close to the 221mg that my first test showed, what does that tell us? Does this invalidate the official 243mg COA? What other possible conclusion can be drawn?

 

[ZaddyZonar]

.I’m curious to know how this information can be used? If all 3 come back close to the 221mg that my first test showed, what does that tell us? Does this invalidate the official 243mg COA? What other possible conclusion can be drawn?

None of their testing can be trusted, their brewer sucks, they don’t test every batch of raws even though they claim to, etc.

 

[Civdiv]

Further to this, and in hopes of keeping things productive and from going off the rails…

I am also sending in a sample from each of my remaining 3 vials of TC250-P10 for testing. All else aside, I have to give @Primal_Pharma credit for agreeing to reimburse for this testing.

This testing will personally benefit me, as I’ll know the concentration of my remaining product. However, I’m hopeful that this will benefit both Primal and the community.

I’m curious to know how this information can be used? If all 3 come back close to the 221mg that my first test showed, what does that tell us? Does this invalidate the official 243mg COA? What other possible conclusion can be drawn?

I've got the same concern with the same mast that was underdosed in someone's labs. I've got about 10 of them from the same batch but not sure I fully trust the batch numbers anyway. Can't send a sample from each with that many. Problem is I have no idea what I'll be injecting. 300mg/wk? 400?

I guess I can blend them all in a 100ml vial and send a sample from it. Maybe just fill smaller vials from there? Just seems like a waste of a bunch of vials but don't know another way to know what I'm actually dosing.

 

[Primal_Pharma]

Even if the concentration is incorrect, all vials should have the same incorrect mg/ml or (within a 2 percent variance) within the same batch. That's what people are asking about.

The reason for the discrepancy is because you are brewing multiple homogeneous solutions. (Multiple brews)

Sure, you can improve precision by using a better calibrated volumetric flask, but as long as it isn't a single homogeneous brew that you draw from, there exists the possibility of vial to vial variances.

Am I missing something?
@readalot

You’re not missing anything. That’s exactly the issue. We aren't doing one giant, single homogeneous brew, we're doing multiple brews using the same recipe and raws. And yeah, that’s where the variance creeps in. Even if everything is measured as carefully as possible, each pot is its own environment. One might land a little higher, one a little lower, and once they’re bottled, they’re all technically under the same batch number even though they didn’t come from the same literal container.

The whole point of moving to a calibrated volumetric flask and larger equipment is so we can do one real batch instead of splitting it across multiple brews. One pot, one final volume, one homogeneous solution. That eliminates this spread.

 

[newguy2]

You’re not missing anything. That’s exactly the issue. We aren't doing one giant, single homogeneous brew, we're doing multiple brews using the same recipe and raws. And yeah, that’s where the variance creeps in. Even if everything is measured as carefully as possible, each pot is its own environment. One might land a little higher, one a little lower, and once they’re bottled, they’re all technically under the same batch number even though they didn’t come from the same literal container.

The whole point of moving to a calibrated volumetric flask and larger equipment is so we can do one real batch instead of splitting it across multiple brews. One pot, one final volume, one homogeneous solution. That eliminates this spread.

Is it just me or have you danced around answering that directly for the last month?

 

[Primal_Pharma]

I've got the same concern with the same mast that was underdosed in someone's labs. I've got about 10 of them from the same batch but not sure I fully trust the batch numbers anyway. Can't send a sample from each with that many. Problem is I have no idea what I'll be injecting. 300mg/wk? 400?

I guess I can blend them all in a 100ml vial and send a sample from it. Maybe just fill smaller vials from there? Just seems like a waste of a bunch of vials but don't know another way to know what I'm actually dosing.

I get the concern, but saying you have “no idea” what you’re injecting is a little dramatic, especially when we’ve reimbursed every test and most blind tests on our stuff have come back spot on.

If you want a definitive answer, blending the vials into one sterile vial and sending a sample from that is actually the smartest approach. It gives you one clean number you can dose from instead of guessing.

And if it comes back off, same deal as always, we take care of you.

 

[Earthworm Jim]

Yes, absolutely.

We’re already moving that direction. The only reason volumetric flasks even came up is because someone who actually knows their shit took the time to break it down for us, sent links, and went out of their way to help. That’s the kind of critique I respect. Calling things out but also offering real solutions because they actually want to see us improve.

That’s a lot different from the guys who just sit on the sidelines, don’t buy a thing, will never buy a thing, and still linger just to talk shit.

I've been using almost exclusively your products for 17 weeks and results are great

 

[ZaddyZonar]

You’re not missing anything. That’s exactly the issue. We aren't doing one giant, single homogeneous brew, we're doing multiple brews using the same recipe and raws. And yeah, that’s where the variance creeps in. Even if everything is measured as carefully as possible, each pot is its own environment. One might land a little higher, one a little lower, and once they’re bottled, they’re all technically under the same batch number even though they didn’t come from the same literal container.

The whole point of moving to a calibrated volumetric flask and larger equipment is so we can do one real batch instead of splitting it across multiple brews. One pot, one final volume, one homogeneous solution. That eliminates this spread.

If you’re using the same exact recipe measuring carefully as possible with each batch, how do you go from a solid Mast P 200 test to a customers blind test being 25% underdosed?

 

[Primal_Pharma]

If you’re using the same exact recipe measuring carefully as possible with each batch, how do you go from a solid Mast P 200 test to a customers blind test being 25% underdosed?

There can be a hundred little variables, brother. Slight differences in volume, mixing, temp, glassware, raw lot… this isn’t some magical zero-variance pharma line.

We’ve never claimed to be perfect, and shit like this does happen from time to time for every source. You’ve seen most of the blind tests on our stuff come back solid, but the people like you will always amplify the misses and pretend the good data doesn’t exist.

We own it when something comes in off and we fix the process. That’s a lot more than most people talking shit are doing.

 

[ZaddyZonar]

We are entering with a clear purpose: to set a higher standard and lead the way in performance supplementation. We are not here to follow trends. We are here to redefine them. Our approach is anchored in uncompromising quality, complete transparency, and an unrelenting drive to elevate expectations at every level. From day one, our commitment has been to earn your trust by delivering consistent, measurable results and standing behind every product we create. We don’t just aim to participate in this space—we intend to set the pace and become the benchmark by which others are measured.

Every product is developed by experienced professionals who hold themselves to the highest standards. We source only premium raw materials and apply rigorous manufacturing protocols to ensure maximum purity, stability, and bioavailability across our entire line of oral and injectable compounds.

We’ve never claimed to be perfect, and shit like this does happen from time to time for every source. You’ve seen most of the blind tests on our stuff come back solid, but the people like you will always amplify the misses and pretend the good data doesn’t exist.

I’ll leave this here. Maybe follow your word, stop reselling CN oil and beating around the bush saying it ain’t so, get your brewer in check, and quit underdosing your shit. It’s going to get tested and caught eventually, like it already has.

I’ve spent enough money on you all to “amplify” your misses

 

[yepyep12]

There can be a hundred little variables, brother. Slight differences in volume, mixing, temp, glassware, raw lot… this isn’t some magical zero-variance pharma line.

We’ve never claimed to be perfect, and shit like this does happen from time to time for every source. You’ve seen most of the blind tests on our stuff come back solid, but the people like you will always amplify the misses and pretend the good data doesn’t exist.

We own it when something comes in off and we fix the process. That’s a lot more than most people talking shit are doing.

Brother I've sent you an email just right now regarding blood work credit. I just wanted to tag you here so you can verify it on your end.

 

[Civdiv]

I get the concern, but saying you have “no idea” what you’re injecting is a little dramatic, especially when we’ve reimbursed every test and most blind tests on our stuff have come back spot on.

If you want a definitive answer, blending the vials into one sterile vial and sending a sample from that is actually the smartest approach. It gives you one clean number you can dose from instead of guessing.

And if it comes back off, same deal as always, we take care of you.

Easy now. I didn't mean anything shitty by it. I get you're a little defensive right now but you got to at least understand it's a fair concern. I'd say a good portion of the vials I have lined out for the next couple years have your name on it. I'm fucking old and anal about doses and bloodwork and whether you think it's dramatic or not this shit is important to me.

You've taken amazing care of me through multiple orders, reimbursed for tests, no questions asked made it right with the anadrol I got, and went well beyond what I was owed to the point where I declined the extra store credit because I was already made whole. Maybe I'm a little ocd about it but there's a difference between 300mg and 400mg a week. Enough of a difference that I'd like to know exactly what I'm putting in me.

I had no doubt you'd pay for testing. I'm just making sure what I was thinking would work to make it as easy as possible without burning you too much for jano reimbursement. There's one or two people here smarter than I am and maybe there was a better way that I was missing.

 

[KapnKrunch]

I don't test anything & I want my old stoppers back so I can save $6.

I'll post my primal labs soon I was like 2400 so something must be working.

 

[Ferhev]

Ok, I think TC250 is working lol