Very relevant as one considers all the input errors for a propagation of error analysis on final product API concentration.
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
MESO-Rx Sponsor Primal Pharma - US Domestic
- Thread starter Primal_Pharma
- Start date
-
- Tags
- primal
Infernalmango
Member
Pretty simple imo. How it should be done:
- Receive raws.
- Test raws.
- Do math. Brew.
- Test brew.
- List for sale.
How it seems its being done:
- Receive raws
- Guess. Brew.
- Test raws and brew at same time.
- List for sale.
crispybacon!
Member
I think the thing I’m more curious about is, if the same raws were used, how did the 100 come in so tight, yet the 200 is so far off.
New2theGame!!
New Member
Its over 10% underdosed, you think that’s good brewing?
New2theGame!!
New Member
Over 10% underdosed is brewed well huh? Did you get homeschooled?
And it’s just a name, I’ve been doing this for a while. Are you really a hard gainer little man or just don’t know how to work out?
Very good point right here!
New2theGame!!
New Member
Exactly but we have others that are happy with underdosed gear for same raws.
New2theGame!!
New Member
Well said sir
At this point who cares anymore. Not because it's not important, but the vendor has shown they're going to do it how they do it. What you're talking about has been talked about for the last 3months repeatedly. I keep an eye on this thread to see if things change but as far as making purchases I made the decision to move on.
At this point it seems clear that everyone who is complaining is not going to make a difference.
Whistles77
Member
I think the raws were tested, HLPC done, GCMS done that came up great, results shared, price adjusted.
Could it have been produced with a higher lead time and more accurately? Sure it could’ve by knowing raw purity before brewing. Definitely not perfect, but as a product it is what it is. I’ll pin it (I’ve already bought both the 100mg and the 180mg).
As far as im concerned this looks like great Primo 180mg/ml. I’d be more worried about the label concentration being misleading than the testing, which suggests the product is pinnable and gives me the info I need.
But then, I’m just a homeschooled simpleton.
Tradeoffs between scale, lead time, cost, quality and how they relate to customer needs and market demands? All too advanced for my little brain.
Last edited:
Raiders789
Member
I think its worth pointing out that the FDA typically allows a +-10% margin of error with injectable pharmaceuticals, and on top of that HPLC testing can have an error range of up to 5%.
It's highly unlikely primal purposely under dosed just their primo 200 to save a little bit of raws lmao, otherwise they wouldn't have lowered the primo200's price. I'd be willing to bet it was testing MoE not falling in their favor, and if people were to send in blind samples I'm sure we'd see testing come in much closer to 200mg/ml.
It's highly unlikely primal purposely under dosed just their primo 200 to save a little bit of raws lmao, otherwise they wouldn't have lowered the primo200's price. I'd be willing to bet it was testing MoE not falling in their favor, and if people were to send in blind samples I'm sure we'd see testing come in much closer to 200mg/ml.
Infernalmango
Member
Sometimes the good fight is a tough fight. Iv got a lot of primal stuff from the beginning, but yes I veered elsewhere once the bs started.
He just blew up too quick, but I still have hope for him to eventually get it together.
@Primal_Pharma
Thoughts on SOPs? Any opportunities to tighten up accuracy and precision batch to batch? Any updates?
Many people mention they want these tighter tolerances but what are we going to do to get there?
Thoughts on SOPs? Any opportunities to tighten up accuracy and precision batch to batch? Any updates?
Many people mention they want these tighter tolerances but what are we going to do to get there?
crispybacon!
Member
I don’t think I’ve seen anyone claim that Primal was deliberately shorting the P200. That wouldn’t even make sense anyway since he was having it tested. It’s more a question of brewing competency, for me at least.
For sure the 100mg being spot on makes things look a bit subpar. I would have more confidence in the Brewer if they were both off by a similar margin.
These guys just can't exercise the patience to test raws and then brew.
But who knows what goes on behind the scenes. They may be leveraged financially and need to get the stuff for sale to recoup some capital.
People complaining about the underdosed primo for 165$ domestic price when you can get pharmaqo 175mg primo for 180$ it hasn’t even been GCMS tested, or raws tested relatively it’s a good price and we know what’s in it, what’s the big issue ? In retrospect he’s done everything right in this segment. Sure maybe brewing calculations need to be refined more but I take this as a great movement into the right direction in progress of a source.
Raiders789
Member
I may be incorrect, but a bit of surface research gave me the impression that (at least for testosterone) they have to conform to the USP monograph and they require that testosterone injections be within 90%-110% of the labeled amount of whatever test ester(by HPLC). But the manufacturers can shoot whatever range they want, like within 2% and market as that, as long as it meets the USP requirements
True and you could be right. But I just did a quick surf of their lab results on their website and it looks like big majority of their injectables are almost spot on, with a few slight overdoses and under doses. But then again, there was the cyp 50 overdose a little while ago that was pretty significant so I'm not sure what to think
Photon
Member
Indeed, pharma variance is 10%.
I'm just saying that repeated testing of a vial or batch @ Jano has a rough variance of 2% (average as of 2023) - 5% (rare case)
Raiders789
Member
Ohhh ok my bad I totally misinterpreted that lmao
Similar threads
