Nexaph 3rd Party Testing
-
@nuncles You might be right. I assumed they are the same. The COA’s for batches I have purchased have not been available until the customer testing was done and seemed to match.
-
Hopefully this doesn't open a can-o-worms, but are there worse offender(s) than others that are at failing such test at a higher rate? There are only a handful of API producers (5-6?) that I'm aware of and then probably double that or more in finishers/packagers. Are weaker producers making products with lower quality that show in testing results?
-
Hopefully this doesn't open a can-o-worms, but are there worse offender(s) than others that are at failing such test at a higher rate? There are only a handful of API producers (5-6?) that I'm aware of and then probably double that or more in finishers/packagers. Are weaker producers making products with lower quality that show in testing results?
-
@markgroce purepeptides has fake COA’s there are several others. When I was a noob I ordered from there and let’s just say my rat had a bad experience
-
@markgroce purepeptides has fake COA’s there are several others. When I was a noob I ordered from there and let’s just say my rat had a bad experience
-
If anyone knows it would be interesting to get an answer. If purity is over 99pct most are over 99.5pct is it even statistically possible to have enough endotoxins or heavy metals to fail? The Jano guy straight up said it’s a waste of time. (I am paraphrasing) the Nexaph people apparently feel this way. Same for sterility. Most people believe the difference between 99.5 and 100 or whatever is just moisture from the manufacturing process or degradation. We see this is the random testing on telegram they always pass in the Nexaph threads.
@Stevepep I wonder about the details of this "purity test". What does this 99.5% represent? In the vials we usually see a puck or a tablet-like mass, which has a volume of a something weighting about 1 gram, while the active component may be listed as 10 mg.
Imagine 1 g of salt for instance, a quarter of a teaspoon (1 g), vs. a few grains of salt (10 mg).
The majority of the volume, 99% in this case, is not the active ingredient, it is the "excipients", like glycine or mannitol. I wonder, this 99.5% purity, it is percentage of what? It can't be of the total mass, right? So, it is of the mass of the active ingredient. For that they need to separate it from everything else like those excipients and whatever else is there.
How does this testing perform it? What else is excluded? It is very easy to imagine the dangerous level of heavy metals, bacteria and their derivatives (endotoxins) in 1 gram of a solid matter. -
I’m a noob as well but the way I understand it is the Nexaph telegram group is used so that researchers donate a sample from their own kits and Nexaph pays for the test. My understanding is that this gives researchers a reasonable assumption that the company didn’t “hand pick” certain samples they knew would look good on a COA. Thus making it more of a “random” and “fair” test. They only test for mass content and purity. So the benefit of a third party group test in my eyes would be that researchers could do more tests, (sterility, endotoxins, heavy metals) and a plus would be that you could get more samples to average out mass content. Being new to a lot of this. I will do the third party group testing. It just makes me feel more warmer and fuzzier inside.
@WesEqualshXc You can get links to 3rd party testing groups from the Nexaph TG groups. And that is where all the added testing comes in you'd like to see.
-
@Stevepep I wonder about the details of this "purity test". What does this 99.5% represent? In the vials we usually see a puck or a tablet-like mass, which has a volume of a something weighting about 1 gram, while the active component may be listed as 10 mg.
Imagine 1 g of salt for instance, a quarter of a teaspoon (1 g), vs. a few grains of salt (10 mg).
The majority of the volume, 99% in this case, is not the active ingredient, it is the "excipients", like glycine or mannitol. I wonder, this 99.5% purity, it is percentage of what? It can't be of the total mass, right? So, it is of the mass of the active ingredient. For that they need to separate it from everything else like those excipients and whatever else is there.
How does this testing perform it? What else is excluded? It is very easy to imagine the dangerous level of heavy metals, bacteria and their derivatives (endotoxins) in 1 gram of a solid matter.@vpeptides I just read this yesterday and it helped me to understand the purity numbers.
https://peptidecritic.com/blog/why-test-results-vary-between-labs-multi-lab-coa-comparison
-
Another article I read yesterday... that I cannot find currently, also described "purity" as the amount of the total sample that tests at the peptide marker. (the spike on the graph of a COA). So Im liking @stevepep idea that if a sample volume contains 99.8% of that specific chemical, then it has no room for much else. Had not thought that through before.
-
Another article I read yesterday... that I cannot find currently, also described "purity" as the amount of the total sample that tests at the peptide marker. (the spike on the graph of a COA). So Im liking @stevepep idea that if a sample volume contains 99.8% of that specific chemical, then it has no room for much else. Had not thought that through before.
@JtCjEfF I don't think this idea is valid. HPLC curve shows a spike and from it the ingredient can be identified by the timing, and quantified by the area under curve. Purity seems like is basically AUC for the spike / total AUC. But! Where is the spike for the filler? Whatever it is, mannitol, sorbitol, they should have it's own, massive spike, because the proportions are like 1/100. Obviously this spike is filtered out, what else can be done here? So, my question remains, what else can be filtered out from the graph? HPLC usage is limited to those single molecules we know and can identity, and the rest is unknown.
-
Most vendors I have seen/bought from don’t have endo testing. The COA you get from Nexaph is based on the vials sent to Janoshik by users. One would think that paying customers sending vials they bought in to Janoshik for testing paid for by Nexaph is as reputable if not more so than testing the vendor did on their own without any transparency.
So you are saying that the COA which Nexaph supplies on their website are not from vials they themselves sent to Jano? He just uses the COA provided by the third party vendor sponsored group?
When I've compared the two COA's they are different. Different dates and task numbers but with the same vial batch number.
@Nuncles Nexaph does both. They send in vials and there is a group where customers send in vials to Janoshik and Nexaph pays for it. The results are posted in the TG group. It will be a couple weeks after the presale ends before the first COAs come in. Then another few weeks before the customer provided vial results come back.
-
Another article I read yesterday... that I cannot find currently, also described "purity" as the amount of the total sample that tests at the peptide marker. (the spike on the graph of a COA). So Im liking @stevepep idea that if a sample volume contains 99.8% of that specific chemical, then it has no room for much else. Had not thought that through before.
@JtCjEfF - Purity is a measure of how clean the detectable peptide is. It has nothing to do with volume or mass in the vial. It's like the old joke...."I love White Castle! They claim their burgers are 100% beef... at least, the part of the burger that is beef."
-
@Stevepep I wonder about the details of this "purity test". What does this 99.5% represent? In the vials we usually see a puck or a tablet-like mass, which has a volume of a something weighting about 1 gram, while the active component may be listed as 10 mg.
Imagine 1 g of salt for instance, a quarter of a teaspoon (1 g), vs. a few grains of salt (10 mg).
The majority of the volume, 99% in this case, is not the active ingredient, it is the "excipients", like glycine or mannitol. I wonder, this 99.5% purity, it is percentage of what? It can't be of the total mass, right? So, it is of the mass of the active ingredient. For that they need to separate it from everything else like those excipients and whatever else is there.
How does this testing perform it? What else is excluded? It is very easy to imagine the dangerous level of heavy metals, bacteria and their derivatives (endotoxins) in 1 gram of a solid matter.This post is deleted! -
Personally, I don’t trust testing that the vendor is paying for..
Do your own testing of the stuff actually receive@Commander For me personally, I find it too costly to test everything I have. I don't buy enough bulk to justify the extra time and expense. If that's the case, I will just spend the money on compounded stuff and not deal with the headache and wait times.
Edit: Thus the reason for the initial question. To determine if the vendor paid third party COA is good enough to compare with the vendor supplied COA or if it's worth the investment of contributing to the independent group test.
-
@Commander For me personally, I find it too costly to test everything I have. I don't buy enough bulk to justify the extra time and expense. If that's the case, I will just spend the money on compounded stuff and not deal with the headache and wait times.
Edit: Thus the reason for the initial question. To determine if the vendor paid third party COA is good enough to compare with the vendor supplied COA or if it's worth the investment of contributing to the independent group test.
-
@Commander For me personally, I find it too costly to test everything I have. I don't buy enough bulk to justify the extra time and expense. If that's the case, I will just spend the money on compounded stuff and not deal with the headache and wait times.
Edit: Thus the reason for the initial question. To determine if the vendor paid third party COA is good enough to compare with the vendor supplied COA or if it's worth the investment of contributing to the independent group test.
@Nuncles Janoshik is world renowned. Companies, test groups and independ individuals from all around the world send their chemicals there to be tested. Do they make mistakes of course they do. They test hundreds of vials daily. Even .1% mistakes would be a mistake everyday or two. Also HPLC calibration can drift. They are as trust worthy as any independent lab you will find. Commander had issues with a kit of selank or semax he purchased from nexaph. They made a disclaimer directly below the "add to cart" button stating that some bottles appear underfulled but all samples tested fine. Then when the results came back for the individuals submitted vials the results showed the same thing. Most of the contents of any vial are lipolised salts. Some of the vials lacked the salts. Only had what looked like a residue. That was in fact the peptide. 10mg is such a small amount it can barely be seen. He brought it to their attention on the telegram group. I watched it in real time. They gave him a reasonable explanation. He argued then they escalated. Then he got slightly off colored and they banned him. Certainly his vials he posted looked suspiciously underfilled. Pretty much everyone agrees at the visual aspect. Im not saying dont listen to his advice. Im saying take his advice but also weigh it against other people's experience.
-
@Nuncles Janoshik is world renowned. Companies, test groups and independ individuals from all around the world send their chemicals there to be tested. Do they make mistakes of course they do. They test hundreds of vials daily. Even .1% mistakes would be a mistake everyday or two. Also HPLC calibration can drift. They are as trust worthy as any independent lab you will find. Commander had issues with a kit of selank or semax he purchased from nexaph. They made a disclaimer directly below the "add to cart" button stating that some bottles appear underfulled but all samples tested fine. Then when the results came back for the individuals submitted vials the results showed the same thing. Most of the contents of any vial are lipolised salts. Some of the vials lacked the salts. Only had what looked like a residue. That was in fact the peptide. 10mg is such a small amount it can barely be seen. He brought it to their attention on the telegram group. I watched it in real time. They gave him a reasonable explanation. He argued then they escalated. Then he got slightly off colored and they banned him. Certainly his vials he posted looked suspiciously underfilled. Pretty much everyone agrees at the visual aspect. Im not saying dont listen to his advice. Im saying take his advice but also weigh it against other people's experience.
@TheHazmatGuy Yep and there's even a blog that @randy posted that discussed that regardless if the puck is small or not, both tested just fine and passed testing of concentration. Just as you stated, in the end, make your decision and don't let others influence yours.
-
@Nuncles Janoshik is world renowned. Companies, test groups and independ individuals from all around the world send their chemicals there to be tested. Do they make mistakes of course they do. They test hundreds of vials daily. Even .1% mistakes would be a mistake everyday or two. Also HPLC calibration can drift. They are as trust worthy as any independent lab you will find. Commander had issues with a kit of selank or semax he purchased from nexaph. They made a disclaimer directly below the "add to cart" button stating that some bottles appear underfulled but all samples tested fine. Then when the results came back for the individuals submitted vials the results showed the same thing. Most of the contents of any vial are lipolised salts. Some of the vials lacked the salts. Only had what looked like a residue. That was in fact the peptide. 10mg is such a small amount it can barely be seen. He brought it to their attention on the telegram group. I watched it in real time. They gave him a reasonable explanation. He argued then they escalated. Then he got slightly off colored and they banned him. Certainly his vials he posted looked suspiciously underfilled. Pretty much everyone agrees at the visual aspect. Im not saying dont listen to his advice. Im saying take his advice but also weigh it against other people's experience.
@TheHazmatGuy said:
@Nuncles Janoshik is world renowned. Companies, test groups and independ individuals from all around the world send their chemicals there to be tested. Do they make mistakes of course they do. They test hundreds of vials daily. Even .1% mistakes would be a mistake everyday or two. Also HPLC calibration can drift. They are as trust worthy as any independent lab you will find. Commander had issues with a kit of selank or semax he purchased from nexaph. They made a disclaimer directly below the "add to cart" button stating that some bottles appear underfulled but all samples tested fine. Then when the results came back for the individuals submitted vials the results showed the same thing. Most of the contents of any vial are lipolised salts. Some of the vials lacked the salts. Only had what looked like a residue. That was in fact the peptide. 10mg is such a small amount it can barely be seen. He brought it to their attention on the telegram group. I watched it in real time. They gave him a reasonable explanation. He argued then they escalated. Then he got slightly off colored and they banned him. Certainly his vials he posted looked suspiciously underfilled. Pretty much everyone agrees at the visual aspect. Im not saying dont listen to his advice. Im saying take his advice but also weigh it against other people's experience.
And this is the problem, misinformation. No I never bought selank or semac from Nexaph. I bought CJC/Ipa from them and had it tested. I never posted pictures of the vials. There was never any under-fill warning for the CJC/IPA.
So this is the problem, you just posted COMPLETELY wrong information.
So I think the correct answer is, take what you say with a grain of salt…. Posting bad information like this as is if was true information is the problem. -
@TheHazmatGuy Yep and there's even a blog that @randy posted that discussed that regardless if the puck is small or not, both tested just fine and passed testing of concentration. Just as you stated, in the end, make your decision and don't let others influence yours.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login