Azteca Test E 750mg/2248ng

[effswithtren]

Link to Bloodwork:

https://imgur.com/a/68OLbPR

| Source: @azteca
| Test Ester Running: Enanthate
| Weekly Testosterone Dose (mg): 750mg/wk
| Weeks Run: 5 plus a few days
| Draw Time from Last Pin: 46hrs
| Testosterone Reading: 2248 ng/dl
| Testosterone Multiplier: 2.997
| Test capped: No
| Estrogen Reading: 14
| Liver/Lipids Elevated: No
| Other Compounds in Cycle: EQ, NPP, DHB
| Insert anything else in cycle: 60mg Ralox ED,
40mg Telmisartan ED
| Weekly Dose Other Compunds (mg): 750 EQ, 600 NPP, 400 DHB
Notes: Usually I get a higher multiplier than this. Don’t know what’s up with that, but it is what it is. Just reporting what I got. Telmisartan is working wonders for keeping my HCT & BP, EQ is doing a great job keeping my E2 low, maybe a little too good. I plan on upping test to 1g to elevate E2 some. Despite the higher dosages (I don’t advise this) I feel great.

 

[azteca]

@effswithtren Looks good but you have to fix the table for CAP to approve it. Thank you for getting your blood work done and sharing with the community. Once CAP approves it we will get you your store credit. Thanks AG

 

[effswithtren]

Link to Bloodwork	https://imgur.com/a/68OLbPR
Source	@azteca
Test Ester Running	Enanthate
Weekly Testosterone Dose (mg)	750 Mg
Other Compounds in Cycle	EQ, NPP, DHB
Weekly Dose Other Compunds (mg)	750 EQ, 600 NPP, 400 DHB
Weeks Run	5 wks, 3 days
Draw Time from Last Pin	46hrs
Blood Results
Testosterone Reading in ng/dl	2248 ng/dl
Testosterone Multiplier	2.997
Test Capped at 1500?	No
Estrogen (E2) Reading pg/ml	14 pg/ml
Liver/Lipids Elevated?	No
Anything Else Goes Below
Notes: Usually I get a higher multiplier than this. Don’t know what’s up with that, but it is what it is. Just reporting what I got. Telmisartan is working wonders for keeping my HCT & BP, EQ is doing a great job keeping my E2 low, maybe a little too good. I plan on upping test to 1g to elevate E2 some. Despite the higher dosages (I don’t advise this) I feel great.

 

[HeftyLefty]

Multiplier is bad. Any ideas why? I use Azteca so I’m curious. What are your normal levels around that dosage

 

[effswithtren]

Yeah I’m not quite sure what’s up with that. On my last run of 750mg I want to say I was 4.5-5ish. I remember that draw time was a few hours shorter but I doubt that’s it. Dunno.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Bloodwork meets all the parameters except multiplier should be 4x or greater. I won’t be able to give source credit until the multiplier is corrected

 

[effswithtren]

@captainamerica I must be misunderstanding. My correct multiplier is 2.997. How am I supposed to “correct” that to >4 when that’s not what my labwork showed?

 

[CaptainAmerica]

@effswithtren By corrected I would mean a retest. I can’t count bloods that are under 4x. On the old forum it would actually be a negative mark on the source but we can’t do that with this forum software.
I’d work with the source for a retest or a jano test but that is between the two of you

 

[effswithtren]

Huh. Didn’t see that in the rules. Well, those were the results I got. I can’t help if they’re not “good” results or not. I guess I just won’t get credit. Nothing against @azteca I actually like them, but that seems pretty shady of a practice to only reward posters that post results that are favorable to the source.
Edit: I must not just understand something here. I was of the assumption that source credit was between the poster and source, and the only interaction with this site was posting bloods on the site. I didn’t know site admins had a part in that.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

@effswithtren Bloodwork counts toward a source’s reputation. This helps them get verified in the beginning but also continues to help if there could be a problem, such as a bad batch.
It does depend on the source, but usually they like the post to count toward their reputation hence why many don’t give credit if it doesn’t count.
Your bloodwork has helped the community still because the source must now look at his inventory quality and/or procedures and see what went wrong or could deny the bloodwork result and request a retest or a Jano test.

 

[effswithtren]

@captainamerica thank you for clarifying, we are on the same page then. Well, I can’t help the results I’ve got. If it were bad data via bad inputs or controls that’s one thing, but I’m pretty meticulous because I want good data for my own sake. So I guess I’ll either get credit or I won’t.

 

[Macaronitime]

Doesn’t make much sense to me either why multiplier has to be 4x for credit. People can be bad responders to test. I also thought credit was just between sources and user, mod is only here to verify.

 

[azteca]

@effswithtren Not sure why your multiplier is so low could be a variable of factors never the less no worries on the credit I will honor it for taking the time to get your blood drawn. Send me email and we will get you squared away. We will also get another retest of your blood work at our expense. We have never had this problem with any other blood work in the past except with one gentleman who was a poor responder. Which was out of our hands. I will wait for email so we can get this squared away. Thanks AG

 

[freetopin]

@CaptainAmerica I didnt think it worked that way either and it seems like a terrible policy. The sources offer credit for labs and for testing of the product. There is no mention anywhere from any source that it has to be a result that makes the source look good. Isn’t the purpose of posting results meant to keep sources honest and to make sure we get quality products?
Why would anyone ever post an honest blood work? You are financially penalized if you are using a poor quality product. It should be the source that is penalized(poor reputation, less customers due to lack of trust) and not the customer. The customer already wasted time on their cycle, money on poor quality gear, and now wont get the promised compensation for taking more time and spending more money to get labs done. So much for keeping the community honest. You are encouraging users to lie.
What a shitty policy.
You’re worried about the sources reputation and not the users of the board.
I hope everyone sees this thread and calls you out on this BS. What a joke.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

@freetopin I believe you misunderstand the policy. The source is being penalized with all the things you’ve mentioned until a plan is created to address and those results are made public.
I’m not sure where the hostility is coming from. Why a user would want a source credit from a source that they received poor quality gear from? They want more potentially poor quality gear?
Users are always encouraged to post both poor and good bloodwork. The system has worked, even in this case.
The credits offered are between the source and the user, I have no control on whether a user gets credit or not. It’s not even a requirement for sources to offer credit, though it is good policy. I only monitor this bloodwork forum, and apply source reputation when it is due. In this case, it is not due. Most sources policy state when a blood does not count toward their reputation they will not give credit. Credits are not SST board/mod policy, again, that is source to user policy. We have simple rules in place so that items are standardized such as title format, table, and draw time to name a few.
Back to the claim of this particular bloodwork. Here we see a poor result. This person may be a poor responder perhaps, or maybe it was a blood analysis error of the lab, maybe the gear was underdosed. There are too many “maybes” to come to any conclusion until further testing is done.
As I stated in my previous reply, the correct course of action is to work this out with the source, usually to fix their reputation and the claim of bad gear. The source did that here appropriately.
For example, say this user retests and gets a good result. Chalk it up to lab error and move on. New bloodwork gets posted, source reputation is restored, user gets their credit. Say they still get a bad result and go HPLC, gear is properly dosed, chalk it up to a poor responder move on. Bad result on blood AND HPLC, source needs to review their procedures and correct with the entire board as necessary with refunds, a batch recall, replacement, etc.
I don’t see how there is any failure by me or SST in the policy or procedure. Happy to clarify further if you need. But I will ask that you bring the hostility level down to further the discussion.

 

[freetopin]

@captainamerica - Not being hostile with this post. Offering a rebuttal.
“The source is being penalized” - Not that customers can see. You are only giving the customer credit if the labs reflect positively on the source. Sounds like you are protecting the source and not the users. You even said
“Bloodwork counts toward a source’s reputation. It does depend on the source, but usually they like the post to count toward their reputation” - All bloodwork counts towards their reputation. It either builds it up or lowers it, but it counts.
“Why a user would want a source credit” - Shouldn’t matter to you. That is for the customer to decide. Maybe the test is underdosed and they would like to have more of the underdosed product to make up for the amount shorted in each bottle. Maybe they want to order a different product. Maybe they want to hold credit and order once a source has updated proven testing. It shouldn’t be your concern.
“Users are always encouraged to post both poor and good bloodwork” - No they are encouraged to post good bloodwork or lie. If they dont get the credit for bloodwork you deem bad, they won’t get the financial credit. Also, bloodwork shouldn’t in regards to the community be deemed good or bad, its should just be blood work.
“I have no control on whether a user gets credit or not” Yes you do. If you dont approve of the format the user gets no credit. If it doesnt reflect positively on the source, you dont approve, they dont get credit.
I suspect that most members of this board dont know this policy. The offer of “Credit for testing” comes across as if the customers here are willing to spend the time and money for a doctor to order the test, a lab fee to run the test, and the time to get both, or get our product tested or our results verified, the customer will be compensated for their time and money.
Again, not trying to be hostile.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

@freetopin Your points:
Sources being penalized:
Posting bad bloodwork does keep a source accountable and does affect their reputation. @azteca did the appropriate thing here and offered to get a new test on their dime for this customer. This is the preferred outcome vs combativeness or deflection. How a source handles a potential issue is equally as important as the issue itself.
Also, I would prefer you rephrase about my approvals.
I am not giving the customer credit. The credit system is not me, other mods, SST, or the board’s action, terms, or policy. Many sources give credit without my input, some give partial if I don’t count it, and some give nothing until I provide my yes/no. But I want to make it very clear, I do not give credits. The board does not give credits.
I have no skin in the game in supplying financial incentive for testing. I only ensure proper protocols for testing and format before applying a yes or no. What a source does with my yes/no is not my concern.
I stand by my “bloodwork counts” statement. Again, from my reply above, we did have software capability previously to have a “positives” and “negatives.” We now do not; it’s a software restriction. However, the bloods are here, in public, for all to see, with proof. The marker of + or - should not be where the buck stops but when researching who to buy your gear from; it should be holistic. This includes posting of bad bloodwork which keeps sources publicly accountable both to the issue and how it was addressed and corrected.
You are correct that whether a user wants a source credit for more bad gear is none of my business. That was more hypothetical. To repeat I have no skin in the game here. But if you give a product a bad review, common sense would dictate you tend to not purchase said product/manufacturer/store etc again. Again, not my business but just an observation. I’d personally prefer to retest or HPLC then get my credits knowing the results were a due to a fluke.
“Post good bloodwork or lie.” I don’t understand this statement. I can’t enforce someone forging their bloodwork document, if that’s what you mean. But the document is posted for review as part of the format. If you mean by withholding bad bloodwork, I’d not advise this but I also have no power to stop that either. I would also assume the bad bloodwork would be shared directly with the source at the very least to, again, reach an amicable conclusion on an individual basis, perhaps before going public. I would not be privy to nor have any way to stop that.
“Credits for testing” is not a board policy. I think the misunderstanding continues to be that testing credits are somehow built into SST in some way. It’s a completely source by source deal.
I hear @effswithtren has emailed and is squared away and happy at this time with what was offered by @azteca
I didn’t feel this reply from you was hostile. Thank you for that.

 

[freetopin]

@CaptainAmerica
“I have no skin in the game in supplying financial incentive for testing. I only ensure proper protocols for testing and format before applying a yes or no. What a source does with my yes/no is not my concern.”
There is the problem. You should be ensuring proper protocols are followed(time from pin, weeks on cycle) and correct format. Thats it. If the customer has been on cycle enough weeks, tests at the correct time, and posts it how you want it, it should be approved. The customer is not at fault for a poor response. The purpose of bloodwork and lab testing is to hold sources accountable for their product, not to increase sources positive reputation. The offer of credit is to reward customers for the time and expense of testing.
Can we make a post in general about this so that the community can be made aware? Something to draw peoples attention to the post? I bet most people dont know this policy. I would love to hear what others think of this. Maybe Im wrong here. I dont think most users will see this VERY important detail buried in a bloodwork post.

 

[azteca]

@freetopin I can see your concerns about the process of getting the credit for blood work which is handled by sources to encourage people to get blood work. There has been many post where peoples blood work is not approved because of several reasons pin time, multiplier, poor responder ect. I personally which is my own choice usually give some or all the credit even if it not always approved. Because in my opinion taking the time and money to get your bloods done and post them. Is still worth something and appreciated by me. I will be sending out several samples to jano in the next few days and Test-e will be in those samples. It’s not likely it is the Test-e because it is fairly cheap compound and when being made by us is overdosed by 10%. Never the less samples will be posted once I receive them to put everyone at ease. I have addressed the user on this blood work and he is receiving his full credit. As well as new blood work being paid by us in a few weeks. Thanks AG

 

[freetopin]

@azteca I in no way mean for this to reflect negatively on you. I have never ordered from you, but your products regularly have high multipliers when posted. You seem to turn out a great product. You also seem to be doing the right thing and compensating people regardless of SST approving the post. There could be many reasons he has a low multiplier this time. Please forgive me if I came across directing any of my concern here towards your product. Not at all my intention.