You do You. I'll do Me.
I am unconcerned about collaborating with other people. I am capable of all kinds of drama all by myself. I don't need other glpkaren fishsteaks to help me go bat guano cray cray. And yes, I absorb all testing costs. I do not share my results because they only pertain to the kit from which I cut a vial.
Even then, the vendors could be selling me products from 10 different batches. So really, that testing result is only good for the vial that was tested. It's a bit of Russian Roulette really. Which one will be over loaded?which have the wrong peptide or no peptide? which one will be contaminated?
People who do not do some kind of testing are not very smart human beings and are going to hurt themselves.
People who do not do some kind of testing have created a value proposition on their means and the value of their health vs. that risk to think that is an OK tradeoff.
If you have $100 of disposable income per month, and you've been saving up for half a year to get 2-3 years of GLP's, then testing is INSANE in terms of financial risk.
The overall odds of getting an actual "bad" result from the "normal" vendors is like below 5% easily (probably below 2% realistically if we did a conglomeration of testing).
You are making a blanket statement based on your perception of reality and what people have as financial risks vs. health risks.
I personally send my supplies in for testing on every buy (and I personally don't participate in group buys if I can't tag along my own vials and chuck the cost in for it). That being said, I have the financial means and the risk vs. cost would be stupid
FOR ME, as the cost of testing is minuscule vs. the potential loss of income from bad product (literally, I've done the math, it's just a bad tradeoff).
In the example I used above, and you are making something like $2500/month net in a moderately costed environment, then I actually think it really make sense to use vendor COA's and be OK with that.
Let's do some of that math above so you can understand, at $20/hour, and assuming you might be WORST case scenario sick for a month if you happen to take a "bad" drug (most of the time it's underdosed/bunk, so no actual reaction, just no effect). So we take 180 hours (assumes 4.5 weeks of work) * 5% (very aggressive guess at risk) * $20 per hour = $180 of risk for this person if they injected themself with a "bad" drug.
In fact, I would say the person in that example would be straight up silly to spend $300 + shipping to get a product tested rather than accept a normal sourced vendor COA. What they SHOULD do is some research on the vendors, a few hours of research would pay spades in risk mitigation before the purchase is made, probably lowering that risk factor by half at LEAST.
). Joined a Telegram and a few Discord groups last night and after further studying: do you all typically test your vials even if reviews have been posted and look good? I know of the testing groups and how that process works. I guess maybe it’s a preference thing, but I’m looking for all opinions and feedback.
I know that’s a stretch, but can’t say it’s never crossed my mind.
