-
04-18-2007, 11:24 AM #81Associate Member
- Join Date
- Dec 2006
- Location
- Ontario, Canada
- Posts
- 277
Maybe this thread should be closed?
For those interested, *be has issued a statement on their forum.
-
04-18-2007, 11:39 AM #82Writer
- Join Date
- Apr 2002
- Posts
- 1,733
Originally Posted by finny
-
04-18-2007, 11:51 AM #83
no this shouldn't be closed.....why should the thread be closed if we are having a conversation like adults......
closing of threads with valuable information about bunk products is not cool...........
how else do you expcet for us to find out about a bunk product.......what for the vendor to send you a "I'm sorry letter" ?
or wait for CNN to have a special on tv? "The bunk shit you got next at 11" ..... lol come on man....this right here , these threads are our source of info.....
if you don't like it then don't click on the link to this thread
-
04-18-2007, 11:58 AM #84Originally Posted by boostedevo8
Agreed
-
04-18-2007, 12:00 PM #85Originally Posted by Anthony RobertsThe answer to your every question
Rules
A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted
to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially
one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs.
If you get scammed by an UGL listed on this board or by another member here, it's all part of the game and learning experience for you,
we do not approve nor support any sources that may be listed on this site.
I will not do source checks for you, the peer review from other members should be enough to help you make a decision on your quest. Buyer beware.
Don't Let the Police kick your ass
-
04-18-2007, 12:14 PM #86Writer
- Join Date
- Apr 2002
- Posts
- 1,733
Originally Posted by spywizard
My council is simply someone who hates ***, who is currently working Pro-Bono.
How hot is that?
-
04-18-2007, 12:15 PM #87Banned
- Join Date
- May 2006
- Location
- Toronto
- Posts
- 3,948
Link removed
just curious what's the deal with this BS ^^^
-
04-18-2007, 12:24 PM #88Writer
- Join Date
- Apr 2002
- Posts
- 1,733
Originally Posted by FaizakaFez
What would you like explained?
-
04-18-2007, 12:24 PM #89Originally Posted by FaizakaFez
They must have used a "jump to conclusions mat" (haha office space)
but in all seriousness, it is what it is, a bunch of people ranting
-
04-18-2007, 12:25 PM #90Writer
- Join Date
- Apr 2002
- Posts
- 1,733
Originally Posted by K.Biz
-
04-18-2007, 12:26 PM #91Banned
- Join Date
- May 2006
- Location
- Toronto
- Posts
- 3,948
got it
-
04-20-2007, 02:06 AM #92
Results from the testing. looks like you been exposed again Roberts..
EPISTANE the test results Chapter 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As promised, we are presenting the remaining portion of tests and data that we have collected in regards to our Epistane product and similar products currently being sold on the market. Since the chapter 1 thread got filled a ridiculously large amount of off-topic posts, we have a recap of the data gathered from previous result postings AS WELL AS new data not yet seen.
Our initial 3rd party testing
It has been argued that we never actually did any tests on Epistane prior to the latest release of data posted in Chapter 1. We had a 3rd party test conducted by RTP labs on 03/19 on Epistane and one of our competitor products after a competitor tested Epistane and claimed he felt it was not consistent with the label. With these results which are shown below, you see the difference in Epistane and the product with 2 major peaks. Epistane tests with a MW of 270 (which we will show to be consistent with later tests) and the competitor product tests with 2 major peaks with MW of 286 and 288 as shown below:
LARGE CAPS=EPISTANE SMALL CAPS= HAVOC
The next results for the three products by RTP Labs was:
(Data posted in Chapter 1 Thread and a separate COC test on Epistane ordered by Mike McCandless)
Epistane - Est. amount per capsule tested = 3.8mg
Amount on label = 10.0mg
One major peak found with a MW of 270
Havoc - Est. amount per capsule tested = 3.3mg
Amount on label = 10.0mg
Two major peaks found with MW of 286 and 288
Hemaguno - Est. amount per capsule tested = 2.0mg
Amount on label = 12.5mg
Three major peaks were found with 2 compounds identified as Palmitic and Stearic Acid and one with a MW of 288.
Explanation: They are testing against testosterone , which is not the most accurate way to test the dose without a standard and could be the reason the numbers are coming out like this. Although, some were claiming Epistane to be an under-dosed product, it became evident that we were correct in assuming that the tests may have been skewed when comparing, with the same procedure, for other similar products. Amazingly the same people who argued that we had an under-dosed product quickly changed stances when the new data was available.
Furthermore, we were told by the analytical party, as well as what had been discussed at great length on several discussion boards, that there is a justification argument for a MW finding of 270 and an argument for 288 without a standard.
What happens next?
Well we obviously have a lot of data and major differences between Epistane and the similar products being sold on the market. This is when we had a Doctor of Forensic Toxicology begin testing a sample of Epistane and the competitor product with 2 major peaks to be able to tell us with 100% certainty that our product is, in fact, consistent with what is on the label.
Confirmation Test by Dr. Lykissa 4/10-4/12: Confirms Epistane is CONSISTENT WITH LABEL
Conclusion: Epistane tested out to be over 99% pure, properly dosed and CONSISTENT with label.
On a sidenote Some individuals have been bringing into question the voluntary replacement of a small batch of Epistane that was produced that was consistent with the product with 2 major peaks. One of these individuals actually called our capsulation company to try to verify this production during the date given. Although, I am sure the company was protecting our privacy and would not release this data to this random caller, it could also be that the order was overlooked because of the order being for bulk capsule and not individual bottling because it was such a small order. Here are the links to the packing invoice of the batch in question and a copy of the invoice to the distributor that was sold the majority of the bottles we had on hand. The funniest part is that this individual actually tried to intefere with the production of Epistane by telling the capsulation company about the product knowing the company doesn't carry the correct insurance to capsule this category of product. Well, good thing *** carries it's OWN product liability insurance so now there will be no delays for future capsulation/production of Epistane even after this last attempt for this individual to stop this product from going any further.
http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/2950/sklabsvd2.jpg (sk labs picture)
http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/7...ndsuppspx6.jpg
Final Comments We are not trying to bash anyone, but instead, prove that all of these accusations that have been made about us in the past are false and that this needs to stop. We had the other compounds tested against Epistane to see whether or not we had made a mistake in our in house testing, but this proves that we did not. Any further arguments made by ANYONE here against Epistane is pointless considering it will just show that they are looking for something to be wrong with Epistane and not taking any of the facts for what they are; accurate. *** has done more than prove the steps we have taken to assure Epistane is consistent with what is on the label and at this point the consumer knows what our product contains and they can either chose to buy our product or not. *** wants to openly apologize for subjecting the community to so much wasted time, arguing with such competitors and members that, we feel, had an agenda. At this point we have shown our data and we are moving on. Now we have a true standard to compare (also created by the Doctor) any and all future batches of Epistane will be tested for purity much easier. We hope the community has seen our efforts to assure the best quality in the products we supply. If you still can't decide which product to choose, let the logs speak for themselvesLast edited by marcus300; 04-20-2007 at 02:20 AM.
-
04-20-2007, 02:40 AM #93
oh snap
good post thanx for clearing upno open source posting
keep all source request's to PM'S please
someone once said to me a clever man learn's by his own mistake's. But a wise man learn's by the mistake's of other people.
detailed detection timesat least 45 day's active use and 100 posts for a source checkunsure about the rule's please read up
thread for first cycle choices
SOURCE CHECKS CLICK HERE
-
04-20-2007, 05:24 AM #94
well even though I still don't know what is in it , thanx for posting those results.....
well I guess this thread will be a hot topic for discussion today lol....
-
04-20-2007, 05:44 AM #95Associate Member
- Join Date
- Dec 2006
- Location
- Ontario, Canada
- Posts
- 277
Originally Posted by boostedevo8
-
04-20-2007, 05:54 AM #96Originally Posted by finny
how did you know I'm on a vit C bulking cycle right now.....
your investigating skills are impressive ....ever been on CSI?
holy $hit wait till they find out about my cutting cycle coming up in a few wks...... (B-12)....shhh top secret.....Last edited by boostedevo8; 04-20-2007 at 05:59 AM.
-
04-20-2007, 07:22 AM #97Writer
- Join Date
- Apr 2002
- Posts
- 1,733
Yeah. How odd.
When a product is sent directly from the store it was being sold at, unopened, to the lab for testing, it doesn't have what it should in it. When *** sends their own product in, it tests out to be perfect.
Isn't that really odd?
Wow. I wonder what could have happened. Because there's even a second test, on another bottle, again, sent from another store carrying the product, where it tested out to have 2.5mgs of...whatever in it. (Posted at the bottom).
How very, very odd...every bottle which is sent from an in***endant third party to be tested comes out shockingly poor, yet when the company sends in their own bottle, it's great stuff, according to the test.
Believe whoever you want, guys. I think I've proven my point.
-
04-20-2007, 07:30 AM #98Originally Posted by Anthony Roberts
I still would like to know what's in it.......
-
04-20-2007, 07:56 AM #99
This whole thread is more of an attempt to tarnish Edited and make yourself look better since there is drama between the two of you.
Stop using this board for your hissy fits with other people. It's fuking so grade school and tiring to us. You have a web site with blog space. Use that for your temper tantrums and internet battles.
If you are as old as you say you are and as educated as you say you are, then you would be acting more mature and dealing with this whole situation on another level.
You should stop airing out your dirty laundry on this board. It causes nothing but drama.abstrack@protonmail.com
-
04-20-2007, 08:05 AM #100Writer
- Join Date
- Apr 2002
- Posts
- 1,733
Originally Posted by abstrack
Move on.
Several members here have asked about this product, and this is relevant to them. If it's not relevant to you, move along.
Simple as that.
-
04-20-2007, 08:06 AM #101Writer
- Join Date
- Apr 2002
- Posts
- 1,733
Originally Posted by boostedevo8
-
04-20-2007, 09:18 AM #102Originally Posted by Anthony Roberts
The bottom line is this stems back from a personal dispute between you and Edited.
You try and sound educated by making it sound like your informing members, but we could also say the same about Marcus, couldnt we Mr. Roberts??
Just as Marcus posted lab results, you could have posted lab results. It can go back and forth. Just as someone could post results about your product and call it horseshit in a capsule and you could post the results tested by you and it can come out as the best thing since ice cream.
The bottom line is the drama that surrounds you is a waste of bandwidth to this board. Go over to **** and take up all the banwidth you like.abstrack@protonmail.com
-
04-20-2007, 09:24 AM #103
Perhaps a random member with some credability and nothing to do with Anthony, the company, ***, any affiliated boards were their a sponsor etc... Should buy 2-3 bottles and get them tested in a few months time. That way it would be fair IMO.
Anything related to the company, boards that have *** as a sponsor or Anthony, has no credability IMHO. Means jack shit in my eyes.
-
04-20-2007, 09:27 AM #104Originally Posted by abstrack
-
04-20-2007, 09:58 AM #105Writer
- Join Date
- Apr 2002
- Posts
- 1,733
I suppose. If people believe what they post, then they should be willing to ante up though.
But it's up to the members to choose whom to believe. An in***endant lab test (2 of them) done by a third party with a Chain Of Custody letter attached, or a test which was done by the company itself.
The fact is that one is far more reputable than the other.
Again, if you don't like me, or my threads, volunteer your time elsewhere and don't read what I post. How difficult is that?
I can pretty much tell you that any unbiased member who reads this thread will avoid that company and their products now...
The only question is why you read threads started by me when you aren't being forced to? Just don't read it if you don't like it.
-
04-20-2007, 10:00 AM #106Writer
- Join Date
- Apr 2002
- Posts
- 1,733
Originally Posted by Swifto
-
04-20-2007, 10:14 AM #107
supposedly *** contracted a 3rd party lab to test similar products (Havoc & hemoguno) and the results yielded the same results...
havoc only had 3.3mg of the active ingredients--label claimed 10mg
hemoguno had 2.0mg of the active ingredients--label claimed 10mg
supposedly there was a problem testing these products again testosterone ...
"Explanation: They are testing against testosterone, which is not the most accurate way to test the dose without a standard and could be the reason the numbers are coming out like this. Although, some were claiming Epistane to be an under-dosed product, it became evident that we were correct in assuming that the tests may have been skewed when comparing, with the same procedure, for other similar products. Amazingly the same people who argued that we had an under-dosed product quickly changed stances when the new data was available.
Furthermore, we were told by the analytical party, as well as what had been discussed at great length on several discussion boards, that there is a justification argument for a MW finding of 270 and an argument for 288 without a standard."
-
04-20-2007, 10:18 AM #108
Connors, their products are in direct competition with your 2 especially the new one, this is why your trying to discredit them. its so plain to see what your trying to do.
If you have been exposed before for lying and falsifying things to your advantage so its about time you gave you and just slip back into your parents back bedroom again.
Let the readers make up their mind and stop your childish comments I think you have loss enough cred around here.
-
04-20-2007, 10:41 AM #109Writer
- Join Date
- Apr 2002
- Posts
- 1,733
Originally Posted by marcus300
Also, for the most part, I have markets which they do not (Edited...) where, for the most part, their products aren't sold or really discussed by members.
I honestly don't see them as my competition per se.
-
04-20-2007, 10:42 AM #110
this thread has gone to $hit....
can you guys just talk about the product and quit with the back and forth bullshit....
I was going to buy it till this thread popped up and pointed out a ingridient that is a mystery....I appreciate that some one was able to post this and bring it to our attention about a companies product being possibly bunk, whether personal or not is not my concern......I only care about what I put into my body.......some may take this post as he is trying to put them down because of previous quarrels and some take it as a heads up on a product that no one knows what's in it......I personally take it as a heads up........a legal issue was brought up and he has been able to give a straight answer in his defense........so can we get back to the topic here (epistane)....Im still curious to know what is in it....maybe I missed it, I am blind at times you know ...can some one point it out for me??
all the damn bickering back and forth hasn't help any of us at all really.....
-
04-20-2007, 10:45 AM #111Writer
- Join Date
- Apr 2002
- Posts
- 1,733
Originally Posted by UpstateTank
When they got information about a competitors product (which was the same as what was reported for theirs), they attacked it like crazy. Then they refuted the same type of lab test that they had done, when theirs was attacked...
They were either wong to attack Havoc, or they have a bunk product also, but there's only 2 possibilities:
1. They were wrong
2. Their product is also bad
But there's no chance that they come out of this clean.
-
04-20-2007, 10:45 AM #112Originally Posted by Anthony Roberts
You speak about the average member looking at this (thread/tests) and it being obvious the tests are correct and Edited are scamming. But the average member here is failry uneducated here (sorry) and to the untrained eye, it may look like Edited are scamming. They dont know much about you do they....And your fued with Edited.
So perhaps YOU should read my post(s) again Anthony.
-
04-20-2007, 10:47 AM #113Writer
- Join Date
- Apr 2002
- Posts
- 1,733
Originally Posted by boostedevo8
-
04-20-2007, 10:49 AM #114Writer
- Join Date
- Apr 2002
- Posts
- 1,733
Originally Posted by Swifto
Try reading it for yourself before you comment on it.
-
04-20-2007, 11:32 AM #115Associate Member
- Join Date
- Dec 2006
- Location
- Ontario, Canada
- Posts
- 277
I'm an average member and I'm for *BE.
Anthony, obviously you have a conflict of interest here and you shouldn't be allowed to post about any competing products - period.
-
04-20-2007, 12:52 PM #116
Way to much drama.
-
04-20-2007, 06:49 PM #117
great thread guys.It reminds me of two trashy women on springer goin back and forth saying oh no u didnt.......girlfriend what???????*bitch slap*"smack" lol{this was no attack on marcus or anthony}
-
04-20-2007, 07:35 PM #118
-
04-20-2007, 07:36 PM #119
oh another lie connors... i mean roberts..
he did not ask several times he emailed once and didnt wait 24 hours for a response. he jumped the gun and posted for a refund on the open board. pa has no issue with us anymore and is not on your hating band wagon by the way. so dont drag the mans name in it with your lies.
did you go to court for your law suit connors. you do know you just got sued real bad right? I mean like everything you own is going to get owned bad. keep talking big mouth.Originally Posted by Anthony RobertsLast edited by LuvMuhRoids; 04-21-2007 at 01:01 AM.
-
04-20-2007, 07:41 PM #120
omg!! another twisted lie by connors...errr i mean roberts. havoc was not openly bashed by Edited lie number 1 here
letters were sent to Edited distributors only lie number 2 here connors
man you just cant tell a truth for the life of you...
oh wait... lie number 3 here
the product epistane is not bad as test results clearly show. turns out it is the best 100% pure product out there. you didnt read those test results did ya mr connors? just wanted to read what you wanted?Originally Posted by Anthony Roberts
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Did I pin the ventrogluteal?...
06-01-2024, 07:11 PM in ANABOLIC STEROIDS - QUESTIONS & ANSWERS