Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
Nope the nerd is underdosing and swapping raws as seen from latest round of Hi-Grounds testing:Hey guys
I know alpha labs aren’t on here anymore but are they still g2g has anyone brought from them recently?
^^ The supposed Primo E was in fact 181mg of Mast E
^^ Mast E 200mg underdosed at 173.9mg/ml
^^ The Test E would've been okay if it was Test E 250mg/ml not labelled as 275mg/ml
Have no trust in any thing PedTest posts
Pedtest are scammersNope the nerd is underdosing and swapping raws as seen from latest round of Hi-Grounds testing:
^^ The supposed Primo E was in fact 181mg of Mast E
^^ Mast E 200mg underdosed at 173.9mg/ml
^^ The Test E would've been okay if it was Test E 250mg/ml not labelled as 275mg/ml
Lmao "PEDTEST"?
How about use some reading comprehension? It's Hi-Ground and read about it yourself?
In terms of Gear tested from AUS:
71% of gear underdosed
9.9% Correctly Dosed Steroid
14.1% Different/Unexpected Steroid
Tests conducted by Dr Timothy Piatkowski (https://experts.griffith.edu.au/32294-tim-piatkowski)
https://evolutionary.org/
How about use some reading comprehension? It's Hi-Ground and read about it yourself?
In terms of Gear tested from AUS:
71% of gear underdosed
9.9% Correctly Dosed Steroid
14.1% Different/Unexpected Steroid
Tests conducted by Dr Timothy Piatkowski (https://experts.griffith.edu.au/32294-tim-piatkowski)
https://evolutionary.org/
I trust that skinny guy
Pedtest is ran by fat bitches
The results of orals testing was horrific.
Pedtest use to be on here they get paid to slander labs
Funny it's only the most respected labs thet have a problem with
Seems like jealous competition to me
Funny it's only the most respected labs thet have a problem with
Seems like jealous competition to me
Dr Tim is paid to slander labs?
No pedtest, who the fuck is this dr Tim and the links are the same as pedtest
The guy is total noob in steroid game
I have jano tested myself on alpha lab dino mix, it came back in acceptable range, if that high ground test was reliable how come they couldn’t detect eq?
That Hi-Ground report is something else... it's like they had an intern enter completely raw and unverified data into a spreadsheet and blindly hit publish 5 minutes before clocking off on a Friday so they could call it a day and get stuck into weekend drinks early.
To say the report contains a few errors would be a gross understatement - it is absolutely riddled with them. I have discussed this with Dr. Tim Piatkowski (the researcher leading the program) who has acknowledged some of the issues raised and voluntarily published a PSA (more on this below), but what was addressed in that PSA barely addressed the tip of the iceberg.
I'll address the claims being made against Alpha but I will also provide additional examples of the errors present in the report as I am better positioned to challenge them since some of the published data has wrongfully made claims about us due to either carelessness or blatant negligence:
The data associated with the remaining test - G-0958 - can also be easily challenged. We haven't had Primo E in stock since April 9 2024. Wave 4 of the program started accepting samples between December 13th 2024 through to Apil 4th 2025. Meaning we'd already been sold out of Primo for over 8 months by that stage. In fact, we still don't have it in stock.
We've only made and sold two batches of Platinum Primo E, both of which were HPLC tested:
Based on our discussions so far, it's also important to note that there is no verification requirement for these submissions. 'Hand-written' submissions are accepted, allowing anyone to specify any lab, expected compound, and expected dose without further verification. This information is published verbatim in the reports without making any note of this. It's published as absolute.
If there is no verification process and no information about the sample submissions (not even a submission date) or the type of submission, and the primary purpose of these tests is simply to obtain oil and oral samples purely for research / analysis for a broader understanding of what is circulating in the PEDs community, then the reports should be presented as such. If anyone can walk into a CheQpoint location with a vial filled with apple juice and say it is Trenbolone Acetate from XYZ Labs and it's going to be published as "no active ingredient found" right next to XYZ's name, that is a problem.
There is also no information published about the type of analysis being used. These samples are not undergoing HPLC analysis which is the expected industry standard. Instead, samples are tested using GCMS - which usually wouldn't be questioned, except the testing is being conducted in a non-standard way that uses 'new lab technology' - as referred to by their team. The exact process is largely a black box and from what I can find, information on the exact processes used are only accessible to their forensics team.
I understand that without further information on the testing it'd be unfair to discredit the process being used, and while possible that the testing itself may be fine, the sheer lack of effort to verify even the most basic key points in the actual submissions themselves just raises serious questions about the integrity of the entire process.
Ordinarily, I would pay no attention to reports like this. We have nothing to hide and I’m sure the other EVO vendors feel the same way. In fact, we encourage customers to independently test the products they receive and fully reimburse them for doing so. The problem is that these reports contain misleading data and some results are just outright false. This becomes a significant issue when companies like PED Test use these reports to further their own agenda.
Their agenda is not focused on harm reduction and is solely driven by their business interests. They weaponise this data to tarnish the reputations of reputable labs. Take a look at their Instagram stories. How many of their stories show a positive test and how many show a negative one? This is because their most effective marketing tool is fearmongering - fear simply sells them more test kits. They spared no time taking aim as soon as this wave report was published. Their instagram captions say it best - "the only way to be sure is to buy test kits and check every batch!".
If anyone wants to get testing done, please do not to give that company your business. Get your product HPLC tested and get a reliable and accurate analysis done. Most - if not all - EVO vendors will reimburse you for the effort. We certainly will. We've always encouraged independent testing and will always reimburse all of the costs involved.
I could continue to elaborate on more, from simple things like the fact that they've published results based on the analysis of 'partial tablet' submissions and claiming that a product is underdosed. Testing a partial tablet is fine if it were a simple presence test but is completely unreliable for obvious reasons when testing for potency - only a fraction of the active ingredient will be in the partial tablet sample, representing the data in the way they did is just wildly misleading. There's a number of other issues that I'm not even going to begin to address. This post is long enough.
As for the Hi-Ground x CheQpoint program - I think it's great that we have such a program available to the public. However, if the published information is riddled with errors, what can we say about the reliability of the data itself? They need to enforce stricter submission guidelines and implement proper verification processes. If they can't verify, they don't present the data in away that claims it to be.
They have a responsibility to do better.
AJ
To say the report contains a few errors would be a gross understatement - it is absolutely riddled with them. I have discussed this with Dr. Tim Piatkowski (the researcher leading the program) who has acknowledged some of the issues raised and voluntarily published a PSA (more on this below), but what was addressed in that PSA barely addressed the tip of the iceberg.
I'll address the claims being made against Alpha but I will also provide additional examples of the errors present in the report as I am better positioned to challenge them since some of the published data has wrongfully made claims about us due to either carelessness or blatant negligence:
- Alpha Labs doesn't offer Primo E in 200mg/mL - only 150mg/mL
- They have UGL OZ associated with a product we have never sold (Dihydroboldenone)
- They have issued a PSA due to an incorrect association of 'Platinum Labs' with our 'Platinum' range. For some reason, they have deviated from previous reports that accurately identified us as 'Platinum' which help make clear distinctions between labs with similar names. Instead, this time simply naming anyone with 'Platnum' in the name as 'Platinum Labs'. Dr. Tim's PSA clarified a few key points, notably that the below have been confirmed to have absolutely no association with our Platinum range:
- B-1017
- B-1018
- B-1019
- B-1020
- Leaving the following two tests:
- G-0958
- G-0959 (unable to test, no reference material)
The data associated with the remaining test - G-0958 - can also be easily challenged. We haven't had Primo E in stock since April 9 2024. Wave 4 of the program started accepting samples between December 13th 2024 through to Apil 4th 2025. Meaning we'd already been sold out of Primo for over 8 months by that stage. In fact, we still don't have it in stock.
We've only made and sold two batches of Platinum Primo E, both of which were HPLC tested:
- https://janoshik.com/tests/33246-Primobol_200_XA75Y5XI9TEA
- https://janoshik.com/tests/35121-Primobol_200_GS1TN9265S2S
Based on our discussions so far, it's also important to note that there is no verification requirement for these submissions. 'Hand-written' submissions are accepted, allowing anyone to specify any lab, expected compound, and expected dose without further verification. This information is published verbatim in the reports without making any note of this. It's published as absolute.
If there is no verification process and no information about the sample submissions (not even a submission date) or the type of submission, and the primary purpose of these tests is simply to obtain oil and oral samples purely for research / analysis for a broader understanding of what is circulating in the PEDs community, then the reports should be presented as such. If anyone can walk into a CheQpoint location with a vial filled with apple juice and say it is Trenbolone Acetate from XYZ Labs and it's going to be published as "no active ingredient found" right next to XYZ's name, that is a problem.
There is also no information published about the type of analysis being used. These samples are not undergoing HPLC analysis which is the expected industry standard. Instead, samples are tested using GCMS - which usually wouldn't be questioned, except the testing is being conducted in a non-standard way that uses 'new lab technology' - as referred to by their team. The exact process is largely a black box and from what I can find, information on the exact processes used are only accessible to their forensics team.
I understand that without further information on the testing it'd be unfair to discredit the process being used, and while possible that the testing itself may be fine, the sheer lack of effort to verify even the most basic key points in the actual submissions themselves just raises serious questions about the integrity of the entire process.
Ordinarily, I would pay no attention to reports like this. We have nothing to hide and I’m sure the other EVO vendors feel the same way. In fact, we encourage customers to independently test the products they receive and fully reimburse them for doing so. The problem is that these reports contain misleading data and some results are just outright false. This becomes a significant issue when companies like PED Test use these reports to further their own agenda.
Their agenda is not focused on harm reduction and is solely driven by their business interests. They weaponise this data to tarnish the reputations of reputable labs. Take a look at their Instagram stories. How many of their stories show a positive test and how many show a negative one? This is because their most effective marketing tool is fearmongering - fear simply sells them more test kits. They spared no time taking aim as soon as this wave report was published. Their instagram captions say it best - "the only way to be sure is to buy test kits and check every batch!".
If anyone wants to get testing done, please do not to give that company your business. Get your product HPLC tested and get a reliable and accurate analysis done. Most - if not all - EVO vendors will reimburse you for the effort. We certainly will. We've always encouraged independent testing and will always reimburse all of the costs involved.
I could continue to elaborate on more, from simple things like the fact that they've published results based on the analysis of 'partial tablet' submissions and claiming that a product is underdosed. Testing a partial tablet is fine if it were a simple presence test but is completely unreliable for obvious reasons when testing for potency - only a fraction of the active ingredient will be in the partial tablet sample, representing the data in the way they did is just wildly misleading. There's a number of other issues that I'm not even going to begin to address. This post is long enough.
As for the Hi-Ground x CheQpoint program - I think it's great that we have such a program available to the public. However, if the published information is riddled with errors, what can we say about the reliability of the data itself? They need to enforce stricter submission guidelines and implement proper verification processes. If they can't verify, they don't present the data in away that claims it to be.
They have a responsibility to do better.
AJ
Last edited:
No, but I think it would be fair to assume that he is under significant pressure to produce these reports and present the data in a way that helps secure ongoing funding for his program. This is not to suggest any foul play, at least not intentionally. I believe the program has great potential to bring value to the PED and bodybuilding communities but there are clearly issues in several key processes that do not align with how they are presenting the data. If they want to maintain their current format, there needs to be a strict set of submission and verification guidelines in place.
AJ
It's likely he didn't even get the original gear to test.
It's a common blackmail scam in the USA some time back. They would peel the label of a vial and stick it on another and send it off for testing - this was done just to ruin a reputation. Example, peel off a primobolan vial label and stick it on a masteron vial or something similar.
This is typically done by drug addicts and/or nasty-negative people, which later comes out. @UGL OZ
I agree, latest 2025 list of Vendors is being prepared - https://www.evolutionary.org/forums...s-2025-q3-community-notes.105118/post-1766098
It’s fair to say there’s a conflict of interest here. The Hi-Ground partnership simply provides a way to legitimise research aimed at furthering commercial interests. He's also leveraged this partnership to create his Steroid QNECT initiative.
Feel free to go down the rabbit hole yourself, but the relationships here are pretty telling -
PED Test promotes Dr. Tim's research (usually through social media).
Dr. Tim is a guest author on PED Test's blog:
https://evolutionary.org/coaching-testing-and-harm-reduction-preliminary-thoughts-and-insights/
A researcher with a PhD would surely give their product credibility.
PED Test promotes Roidsafe:
https://evolutionary.org/roidsafe-telehealth-clinic-another-option-for-getting-bloods-done/
Roidsafe promotes PED Test:
https://evolutionary.org/understanding-peds-and-testing/
It carries on, but that's quite the feedback loop.
What's more important to note here is that the three have now formalised this alliance with the launch of their premium subscription newsletter, Anabolica:
https://www.evolutionary.org/
The Steroid QNECT initiative, Hi-Ground research, the blog posts - it's all about promoting safer practices within the community, right? I wonder what
So if the motive wasn't clear before, it certainly is now: perpetuate fear, secure government funding, maximise profits.
Harm minimisation?
Profit maximisation!It would be interesting to know how their equity is split- it would at least give us insight into who the head honcho is. My guess is that Dr. Tim is the one with the brains, James (Roidsafe) contributes the business acumen, and Alison (PED Test) is simply a pawn.
The fact is, Dr. Tim stands to gain a lot more by producing half-baked reports that portrays PEDs in the worst way possible.
The more prevalent the harm, the bigger the grants and demand for test kits. He's already received $4.5 million in grants for his research on harm reduction:
https://experts.griffith.edu.au/32294-tim-piatkowski/grants
His PhD is in psychology. What else qualifies him for this research? Even if we give him the benefit of the doubt and consider the extent of his expertise in this field by taking a look at some of his research:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=Piatkowski T&cauthor_id=39405812
53 publications but only two of his papers discuss the psychological effects of PED use? Interesting.
AJ
Last edited:
I heard Dr Tim was gayIt’s fair to say there’s a conflict of interest here. The Hi-Ground partnership simply provides a way to legitimise research aimed at furthering commercial interests. He's also leveraged this partnership to create his Steroid QNECT initiative.
Feel free to go down the rabbit hole yourself, but the relationships here are pretty telling -
PED Test promotes Dr. Tim's research (usually through social media).
Dr. Tim is a guest author on PED Test's blog:
https://evolutionary.org/coaching-testing-and-harm-reduction-preliminary-thoughts-and-insights/
PED Test promotes Roidsafe:
https://evolutionary.org/roidsafe-telehealth-clinic-another-option-for-getting-bloods-done/
Roidsafe promotes PED Test:
https://evolutionary.org/understanding-peds-and-testing/
That's quite the feedback loop and the three have now formalised this alliance with the launch of their premium subscription newsletter, Anabolica:
https://www.evolutionary.org/
The Steroid QNECT initiative, Hi-Ground research, the blog posts - it's all about promoting safer practices within the community, right? I wonder whatproductssafe practices they'll be promoting in thismarketingnewsletter?
So if the motive wasn't clear before, it certainly is now: perpetuate fear, secure government funding, maximise profits.
It would be interesting to know how their equity is split- it would at least give us insight into who the head honcho is. My guess is that Dr. Tim is the one with the brains, James (Roidsafe) contributes the business acumen, and Alison (PED Test) is simply a pawn.
The fact is, Dr. Tim stands to gain a lot more by producing half-baked reports that portrays PEDs in the worst way possible.
The more prevalent the harm, the bigger the grants and demand for test kits. He's already received $4.5 million in grants for his research on harm reduction:
https://experts.griffith.edu.au/32294-tim-piatkowski/grants
His PhD is in psychology. What else qualifies him for this research? Even if we give him the benefit of the doubt and consider the extent of his expertise in this field by taking a look at some of his research:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=Piatkowski T&cauthor_id=39405812
53 publications but only two of his papers discuss the psychological effects of PED use? Interesting.
AJ
