Pheromone Reviews - Real People - Real Reviews

Designer Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2010

“(l) 5α-Androstan-3,6,17-trione;

“(li) Androst-4-ene-3,6,17-trione;

“(lii) Androsta-1,4,6-triene-3,17-dione;

“(liii) 6-bromo-androstan-3,17-dione;

“(liv) 6-bromo-androsta-1,4-diene-3,17-dione;

“(lv) 4-chloro-17α-methyl-androsta-1,4-diene-3,17β-diol;

“(lvi) 4-chloro-17α-methyl-androst-4-ene-3β,17β-diol;

“(lvii) 4-chloro-17α-methyl-17β-hydroxy-androst-4-en-3-one;

“(lviii) 4-chloro-17α-methyl-17β-hydroxy-androst-4-ene-3,11-dione;

“(lix) 4-chloro-17α-methyl-androsta-1,4-diene-3,17β-diol;

“(lx) 2α,17α-dimethyl-17β-hydroxy-5α-androstan-3-one;

“(lxi) 2α,17α-dimethyl-17β-hydroxy-5β-androstan-3-one;

“(lxii) 2α,3α-epithio-17α-methyl-5α-androstan-17β-ol;

“(lxiii) [3,2-c]-furazan-5α-androstan-17β-ol;

“(lxiv) 3β-hydroxy-androst-1-en-17-one;

“(lxv) 3β-hydroxy-androst-4-en-17-one;

“(lxvi) 3β-hydroxy-estr-4-en-17-one;

“(lxvii) 3β-hydroxy-estra-4,9,11-trien-17-one;

“(lxviii) 17α-methyl-androst-2-ene-3,17β-diol;

“(lxix) 17α-methyl-androsta-1,4-diene-3,17β-diol;

“(lxx) Estra-4,9,11-triene-3,17-dione;

“(lxxi) 18a-Homo-3-hydroxy-estra-2,5(10)-dien-17-one;

“(lxxii) 6α-Methyl-androst-4-ene-3,17-dione;

“(lxxiii) 17α-Methyl-androstan-3-hydroxyimine-17β-ol;

“(lxxiv) 17α-Methyl-5α-androstan-17β-ol;

“(lxxv) 17β-Hydroxy-androstano[2,3-d]isoxazole;

“(lxxvi) 17β-Hydroxy-androstano[3,2-c]isoxazole

“(lxxvii) 4-Hydroxy-androst-4-ene-3,17-dione[3,2-c]pyrazole-5α-androstan-17β-ol;

“(lxxviii) [3,2-c]pyrazole-androst-4-en-17β-ol;

“(lxxix) [3,2-c]pyrazole-5α-androstan-17β-ol;

HR4771 (2014)

``(l) 5a-Androstan-3,6,17-trione;
``(li) 6-bromo-androstan-3,17-dione;
``(lii) 6-bromo-androsta-1,4-diene-3,17-dione;
``(liii) 4-chloro-17a-methyl-androsta-1,4-diene-3,17b-diol;
``(liv) 4-chloro-17a-methyl-androst-4-ene-3b,17b-diol;
``(lv) 4-chloro-17a-methyl-17b-hydroxy-androst-4-en-3-one;
``(lvi) 4-chloro-17a-methyl-17b-hydroxy-androst-4-ene-3,11-
dione;
``(lvii) 4-chloro-17a-methyl-androsta-1,4-diene-3,17b-diol;
``(lviii) 2a,17a-dimethyl-17b-hydroxy-5a-androstan-3-one;
``(lix) 2a,17a-dimethyl-17b-hydroxy-5b-androstan-3-one;
``(lx) 2a,3a-epithio-17a-methyl-5a-androstan-17b-ol;
``(lxi) [3,2-c]-furazan-5a-androstan-17b-ol;
``(lxii) 3b-hydroxy-estra-4,9,11-trien-17-one;
``(lxiii) 17a-methyl-androst-2-ene-3,17b-diol;
``(lxiv) 17a-methyl-androsta-1,4-diene-3,17b-diol;
``(lxv) Estra-4,9,11-triene-3,17-dione;
``(lxvi) 18a-Homo-3-hydroxy-estra-2,5(10)-dien-17-one;
``(lxvii) 6a-Methyl-androst-4-ene-3,17-dione;
``(lxviii) 17a-Methyl-androstan-3-hydroxyimine-17b-ol;
``(lxix) 17a-Methyl-5a-androstan-17b-ol;
``(lxx) 17b-Hydroxy-androstano[2,3-d]isoxazole;
``(lxxi) 17b-Hydroxy-androstano[3,2-c]isoxazole;
``(lxxii) 4-Hydroxy-androst-4-ene-3,17-dione[3,2-c]pyrazole-
5a-androstan-17b-ol;
``(lxxiii) [3,2-c]pyrazole-androst-4-en-17b-ol;
``(lxxiv) [3,2-c]pyrazole-5a-androstan-17b-ol

Some of these look close enough to what we use that they could conceivably be sourced by Androtics and Alpha Dream.

“(li) Androst-4-ene-3,6,17-trione;

“(lxiv) 3β-hydroxy-androst-1-en-17-one;

“(lxv) 3β-hydroxy-androst-4-en-17-one;

I'm just a layman, though. Maybe one or more of these molecules are missing ingredients in our beloved mixes. Unfortunately, if they are, then they're gone forever, at least on a commercially viable scale.

It's still undeniable, though, that it's possible to create something much closer to the old A314 than the Royale, just by using freely available putatives and other single molecules.

(03-16-2016 9:17 AM)NP17 Wrote: [ -> ]Some of these look close enough to what we use that they could conceivably be sourced by Androtics and Alpha Dream.

“(li) Androst-4-ene-3,6,17-trione;

“(lxiv) 3β-hydroxy-androst-1-en-17-one;

“(lxv) 3β-hydroxy-androst-4-en-17-one;

I'm just a layman, though. Maybe one or more of these molecules are missing ingredients in our beloved mixes. Unfortunately, if they are, then they're gone forever, at least on a commercially viable scale.

It's still undeniable, though, that it's possible to create something much closer to the old A314 than the Royale, just by using freely available putatives and other single molecules.

One big piece of the puzzle here is motivation.

Very few of the current mone vendors appear to be interested in producing quality products. I'm guessing that it's much more lucrative to sell generic products to a large number of new and existing customers, while expecting a certain number of returns. As long as they make a profit, then everything else is just "business as usual".

I'm sure that Androtics does very well selling sub-standard products to the general public. So perhaps it was a wise business decision to stop with all of the "testing" and focus on just moving product.

Lets pretend that some of the old formulas had some of these banned substances in them....

1. Would you (the company) admit that you previously put (now) banned substances into an earlier formulation knowing that you might be liable in a potential lawsuit if long time users tried to make a connection between an ailment and the reason why the substance was banned in the first place?

or

Would you change the formulation and remain quiet about it and try to get as close as you can to the original formulation with alternative products? I'm not pushing one way or the other, but I do like to assume that the other party wouldn't knowingly try and sabotage sales on a popular product for no reason. And they could also say "I have never used banned substances in my pheromones" a la Barry Bonds....because they weren't banned at the time.

2. Even with that said, you would expect people to be honest about changes by simply saying "some of the products are no longer available and we tried to get as close as possible to the original formulation...we thought that we could with the current formulation...unfortunately, we can't control availability no matter how much we want too....we will continue to experiment and make the products better based on your feedback"

(03-16-2016 9:17 AM)NP17 Wrote: [ -> ]Some of these look close enough to what we use that they could conceivably be sourced by Androtics and Alpha Dream.

If there's banned molecules that were removed from the formulas, I would bet on something that is on the 2011 banned list

M.

I think that the truth about A314 is as follows (this is all speculation):

1. One or more of the components to make A314 is not available anymore (Banned steroids). This would fit in with the current speculation because batches after 2011 were not as good as previous batches.

2. This last one is pure speculation but I believe that MHarris is no longer directly involved with Androtics and refuses to give up the original formula. The current revisions (rev 31, 32 Royale and Naturalle) are an attempt by another chemist to duplicate A314.

Companies are not obligated to tell the truth or to even communicate with their customers in a respectful, open or civil manner. Ever heard of the Soup Nazi (Seinfeld SE7 E6)? Even though he was mean to his customers people kept coming back to get his soup.

Androtics is under no obligation to communicate openly or truthfully to it's customers.

Point #1 has been brought up a number of times. I don't leanin any one direction on this subject, but if this is true, P85 is the component we're looking for. I've successfully recreated every possible effect A314 is known for with the possible exception of fallout, which I seem only partially to have recreated - all this with components I already felt certain were in A314. I believe P85 is the missing link. I should hope it's not banned - this would be most unfortunate for my project.

I'll add another possibility: I believe Androtics has been cut off from their previous supplier and can no longer obtain the necessary components in a reasonable amount for commercial purposes. All it takes to reverse-engineer A314's formula is a thorough study of the putative reports and a reasonable amount of testing. Perhaps MHarris was the only one with the identities of some of these molecules - I couldn't say.

It just seems difficult to so thoroughly trash what was once considered to be one of the greatest mixes of all time. Surely they had some understanding of its effects, how these molecules are intended to work? Adding EST to Royale (assuming this was the case) was an atrocious decision.

(03-17-2016 8:37 AM)Ekscentra Wrote: [ -> ]Point #1 has been brought up a number of times. I don't leanin any one direction on this subject, but if this is true, P85 is the component we're looking for. I've successfully recreated every possible effect A314 is known for with the possible exception of fallout, which I seem only partially to have recreated - all this with components I already felt certain were in A314. I believe P85 is the missing link. I should hope it's not banned - this would be most unfortunate for my project.

But P85 was still being sold as a putative for a while after the original Rev. 32, which was reported to have no fallout or much less.

(03-17-2016 11:17 AM)NP17 Wrote: [ -> ]But P85 was still being sold as a putative for a while after the original Rev. 32, which was reported to have no fallout or much less.

Further, Brian from Androtics hinted P85 and P99 would be coming back, saying “stay tuned" privately to me as consolation when I asked to order them at cost + some profit if it couldn’t be done at putative pricing, and he declined.

(03-17-2016 11:17 AM)NP17 Wrote: [ -> ]But P85 was still being sold as a putative for a while after the original Rev. 32, which was reported to have no fallout or much less.

If that's the case, I'd suspect that not a single one of the molecules was banned. If I can reverse-engineer every aspect of A314, I highly doubt any of the components were banned.

If you're suggesting P85 wouldn't be the missing link for fallout, I'll begin looking in other directions. In fact, I'm doing this now (as you know). More ideas will surely pop up in the coming months. We'll get to the bottom of this soon enough.