Big'r
Competitive Bodybuilder
- Lid sinds
- 22 dec 2004
- Berichten
- 1.794
- Waardering
- 21
Dit is niet mijn mening, maar komt van bodyofscience. Mijn indruk is dat een aantal heren daar er behoorlijk veel verstand van hebben.
Dit is een stukje van een van onze eigen leden (Dutchbodybuilder). De geQUOTE stukjes zijn reacties van andere leden:
We posted a few graphs before and I'll do it here again, to illustrate our vision concerning these. What we do understand is that very small part of the UG market is really concerned about the quality of there gear. We don't want to shoot the good with the bad
I get lots of remarks like: why all this fuzz about fakes, underground labs and counterfeits, my clients grow like weeds on the compounds you style as fake or counterfeit. The answer is lots of these fakes are empty underdosed and if thy aren’t they mostly are not pure and sometimes polluted. The user will grow on it, sure it sometimes even contains more active ingredients then the real ones. But that is not all that matters. I’ll post some graphs to make it better visible. And try to explain why Body of Science attach so much importance at this subject.
Most of the readers of this thread wil share our conclusions but wil find it hard to “read” the graphic. This one that shows the gas chromatogram of a two Nile ampoules a real one and a counterfeit.
The peak course in the working matter (API) range is almost identical, with a small difference in the amount of the content of the active ingredients, 221,9 mg/ml at the original against 216,7 at the counterfeit. You see that in the range of the active ingredients the fake shows almost double the amount of reactionpeaks vs the original one. From the 41 st analysis minute on things become interesting, The pollutions in the “counterfeit” show. The peaks are almost as strong as in the active ingredients range (36-41 st minute) This means that tis “counterfeit” has an almost similar amount of API content as the original, but shows that for the rest she contains for about 50% (41-50st minute) “scrab” . These “counterfeits” and “fakes” are extremely dangerous in terms of side effects, some will not always show immediately, but what do you think about the long term effects if you would inject these contaminated products for years and years in a row.
[Afbeelding niet meer beschikbaar]
You are right, but read my previous posting I wrote:
What we do understand is that very small part of the UG market is really concerned about the quality of there gear. We don't want to shoot the good with the bad
Even "good" labs like HCL GS Br Dragon etc can never produce such constant clean products as b.e. Organon. Only look at the analyses in Rebecca's thread. Important is that labs prefilter, use vacuumfilters with 20 or 22 micron filters. Most UG labs filter through 45 micron and spores can easely pass through 45 micron. I've even heards of "labs" filtering through coffeefilters or parts of pantyhoses. We are busy at the moment to get acces to sophisticated anlysesfacilities to enable us to make it visible (fingerprint method). We have a good article about this matter from our member Masschaser, but its not ready for publication yet. William has to edit it first.
Well said, Rebecca. If people on regardless wich base, deliver what customers pay for, try to supply the best possible goods with the best possible quality. They will be able to built a satisfied group of customers, and be able to exist for years. In our field, the underground labs that manufactures, relabels or rebottles steroids, labs come and go. Any older bodybuilder can name tens of labnames that where once hot and then disappeared. Remember b.e. the innovative GAC - Red Star of China, Ttokkyo etc etc
BRON: http://bodyofscience.com/dynamic/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1163
ANDERE PAGINA. VERHAAL IETS ANDERS UITGELEGD:
I get lots of remarks like: why all this fuzz about fakes and counterfeits, my clients grow like weeds on the compounds you style as fake or counterfeit. The answer is lots of these fakes are empty or underdosed and if they aren’t they mostly are not pure and sometimes polluted. The user will grow on it, sure it sometimes even contains more active ingredients then the real ones. But that is not all that matters. I’ll post some graphs to make it better visible. And try to explain why Body of Science attach so much importance at this subject.
Underneath you’ll find a comparison of three Sustanons one original (Portuguese) with the blue line, a fake Sustanon from Belgium with the black line and a fake Sustanon from Egypt with the red line. The analysis was performed for Bodyfitness.
Remarks about the different peakvalues from the left to the right. From 4000-3000 the red line (NILE fake) shows the biggest amount of solvents ( 58 ). The black line shows some deviation also.
Between the values 3000-1750 the oil content is visible. It also shows the differences between the oil content and concentration between the original and the fakes.
The third part from 1750-600 shows the actual concentration of the active pharmaceutical ingredients [API](in this case the four different testosterone esters). Her it shows clearly that the fakes contain pollutions and deviant concentrations. The blue line (the original and reference) has the highest concentration of API. For the irregularities in the curves we can blame parts of oils and solvents beside the nonrelated pollutions from the lesser quality API’s.
Between the values 800-600 you can clearly see that the reference curve (blue line) moves very pure from the baseline up. The fake curves again show many irregularities in the curves, especially at the value 750 are lots of other compounds that cause extra peaks.
[Afbeelding niet meer beschikbaar]
Most of the readers of this thread wil share our conclusions but wil find it hard to “read” the graphic. This one that shows the gas chromatogram of a two Nile ampoules a real one and a counterfeit.
The peak course in the working matter (API) range is almost identical, with a small difference in the amount of the content of the active ingredients, 221,9 mg/ml at the original against 216,7 at the counterfeit. You see that in the range of the active ingredients the fake shows almost double the amount of reactionpeaks vs the original one. From the 41 st analysis minute on things become interesting, The pollutions in the “counterfeit” show. The peaks are almost as strong as in the active ingredients range (36-41 st minute) This means that tis “counterfeit” has an almost similar amount of API content as the original, but shows that for the rest she contains for about 50% (41-50st minute) “scrab” . These “counterfeits” and “fakes” are extremely dangerous in terms of side effects, some will not always show immediately, but what do you think about the long term effects if you would inject these contaminated products for years and years in a row.
[Afbeelding niet meer beschikbaar]
BRON: http://bodyofscience.com/dynamic/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1023
Dit is een stukje van een van onze eigen leden (Dutchbodybuilder). De geQUOTE stukjes zijn reacties van andere leden:
We posted a few graphs before and I'll do it here again, to illustrate our vision concerning these. What we do understand is that very small part of the UG market is really concerned about the quality of there gear. We don't want to shoot the good with the bad
I get lots of remarks like: why all this fuzz about fakes, underground labs and counterfeits, my clients grow like weeds on the compounds you style as fake or counterfeit. The answer is lots of these fakes are empty underdosed and if thy aren’t they mostly are not pure and sometimes polluted. The user will grow on it, sure it sometimes even contains more active ingredients then the real ones. But that is not all that matters. I’ll post some graphs to make it better visible. And try to explain why Body of Science attach so much importance at this subject.
Most of the readers of this thread wil share our conclusions but wil find it hard to “read” the graphic. This one that shows the gas chromatogram of a two Nile ampoules a real one and a counterfeit.
The peak course in the working matter (API) range is almost identical, with a small difference in the amount of the content of the active ingredients, 221,9 mg/ml at the original against 216,7 at the counterfeit. You see that in the range of the active ingredients the fake shows almost double the amount of reactionpeaks vs the original one. From the 41 st analysis minute on things become interesting, The pollutions in the “counterfeit” show. The peaks are almost as strong as in the active ingredients range (36-41 st minute) This means that tis “counterfeit” has an almost similar amount of API content as the original, but shows that for the rest she contains for about 50% (41-50st minute) “scrab” . These “counterfeits” and “fakes” are extremely dangerous in terms of side effects, some will not always show immediately, but what do you think about the long term effects if you would inject these contaminated products for years and years in a row.
[Afbeelding niet meer beschikbaar]
Hi dutch,
I think every steroid thats on the market will be harmfull for your body if you use it for a couple of years on a row....
Ok, what if its an UG lab? Generic Supplements and HCL are UG labs too!! They contain what it should!!
The main part of UG labs is that the products are cheap to buy, and mostly it contains whats on the label.
I allready had a lot of bad experience with fake organon and Jelfa products. You buy them axpencive and it only contains 1/10 of what should be inside the vial.
I am allready ver happy that I found some UG products that realy contains what it should be, also I think that a lot of bodybuilders are very happy that they can get gear that contains what it should be.
Thanks, Mac
You are right, but read my previous posting I wrote:
What we do understand is that very small part of the UG market is really concerned about the quality of there gear. We don't want to shoot the good with the bad
Even "good" labs like HCL GS Br Dragon etc can never produce such constant clean products as b.e. Organon. Only look at the analyses in Rebecca's thread. Important is that labs prefilter, use vacuumfilters with 20 or 22 micron filters. Most UG labs filter through 45 micron and spores can easely pass through 45 micron. I've even heards of "labs" filtering through coffeefilters or parts of pantyhoses. We are busy at the moment to get acces to sophisticated anlysesfacilities to enable us to make it visible (fingerprint method). We have a good article about this matter from our member Masschaser, but its not ready for publication yet. William has to edit it first.
though no non fda/gov lab can be like organon or schering( regardless of what the backers/sources/other people with personal interests some do they more care than others as was seen in the courant newspaper article, though some steps in manufacture are very simple the components like filters are often skipped on and leave heavy metals and other contaminants in there
as shown by the newspaper some very few labs do acutally care about product quality and try their best for maximum sterility
as for others saying they are within GMP standards has anyone here even seen a GMP lab, for a simple 1000 sq meter (11000 sq ft) lab with 2 lines of production of amps and vials the investment would be $1.5 millon without the building construction and that is in china
I have seen a simple lab in china like this and i saw the costs they were shocking,
you need a clean water machine, a clean air machine which recycles the air 20 times per hour at a certain level,special doors ( special material) the doors alone cost $40,000, expoxy resin on the floor $30,000
oil free air compressor $50000 (this is used for granulators and the bottle washing machines to sterlise them)
the list goes on and on
I doubt any of the so called labs have anything like this
for flanker you say a UG lab is a UG lab
so a UG lab using ..2 micron filter and good materials, is the same as a UG lab which filters thru a coffie filter ?
how many of the UG labs have ever been to china ? or even speak chinese to know what is going on at these powder producers
there are 6 main factories with very different standards of production since i am probaly one of the few people who has been to them all i can comment on this and beleive me chinese are a closed community you living in thailand should know this, unless you are chinese many things will not be shown to you in the open, some of those powder producers are good some are very bad and since most of the guys are buying from repackers you have little idea where it originally comes from...............
lastly any doubt to me being chinese dutch and others can clearly see my picture in the reflection of pics I took of some companies office which i posted here
Well said, Rebecca. If people on regardless wich base, deliver what customers pay for, try to supply the best possible goods with the best possible quality. They will be able to built a satisfied group of customers, and be able to exist for years. In our field, the underground labs that manufactures, relabels or rebottles steroids, labs come and go. Any older bodybuilder can name tens of labnames that where once hot and then disappeared. Remember b.e. the innovative GAC - Red Star of China, Ttokkyo etc etc
BRON: http://bodyofscience.com/dynamic/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1163
ANDERE PAGINA. VERHAAL IETS ANDERS UITGELEGD:
I get lots of remarks like: why all this fuzz about fakes and counterfeits, my clients grow like weeds on the compounds you style as fake or counterfeit. The answer is lots of these fakes are empty or underdosed and if they aren’t they mostly are not pure and sometimes polluted. The user will grow on it, sure it sometimes even contains more active ingredients then the real ones. But that is not all that matters. I’ll post some graphs to make it better visible. And try to explain why Body of Science attach so much importance at this subject.
Underneath you’ll find a comparison of three Sustanons one original (Portuguese) with the blue line, a fake Sustanon from Belgium with the black line and a fake Sustanon from Egypt with the red line. The analysis was performed for Bodyfitness.
Remarks about the different peakvalues from the left to the right. From 4000-3000 the red line (NILE fake) shows the biggest amount of solvents ( 58 ). The black line shows some deviation also.
Between the values 3000-1750 the oil content is visible. It also shows the differences between the oil content and concentration between the original and the fakes.
The third part from 1750-600 shows the actual concentration of the active pharmaceutical ingredients [API](in this case the four different testosterone esters). Her it shows clearly that the fakes contain pollutions and deviant concentrations. The blue line (the original and reference) has the highest concentration of API. For the irregularities in the curves we can blame parts of oils and solvents beside the nonrelated pollutions from the lesser quality API’s.
Between the values 800-600 you can clearly see that the reference curve (blue line) moves very pure from the baseline up. The fake curves again show many irregularities in the curves, especially at the value 750 are lots of other compounds that cause extra peaks.
[Afbeelding niet meer beschikbaar]
Most of the readers of this thread wil share our conclusions but wil find it hard to “read” the graphic. This one that shows the gas chromatogram of a two Nile ampoules a real one and a counterfeit.
The peak course in the working matter (API) range is almost identical, with a small difference in the amount of the content of the active ingredients, 221,9 mg/ml at the original against 216,7 at the counterfeit. You see that in the range of the active ingredients the fake shows almost double the amount of reactionpeaks vs the original one. From the 41 st analysis minute on things become interesting, The pollutions in the “counterfeit” show. The peaks are almost as strong as in the active ingredients range (36-41 st minute) This means that tis “counterfeit” has an almost similar amount of API content as the original, but shows that for the rest she contains for about 50% (41-50st minute) “scrab” . These “counterfeits” and “fakes” are extremely dangerous in terms of side effects, some will not always show immediately, but what do you think about the long term effects if you would inject these contaminated products for years and years in a row.
[Afbeelding niet meer beschikbaar]
BRON: http://bodyofscience.com/dynamic/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1023
