<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title><![CDATA[Topics tagged with lab-test]]></title><description><![CDATA[A list of topics that have been tagged with lab-test]]></description><link>https://community.peptidecritic.com/tags/lab-test</link><generator>RSS for Node</generator><lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Apr 2026 11:54:48 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://community.peptidecritic.com/tags/lab-test.rss" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><pubDate>Invalid Date</pubDate><ttl>60</ttl><item><title><![CDATA[Sterility testing replacing USP71 with USP61]]></title><description><![CDATA[I noticed that some vendors are switching to USP61  from USP71 for sterility testing.
I'll preface this with... learning still in progress 
Doesn't this raise a concern?
USP71 = 14+ day wait, USP61 = 5 day wait.
It seems like they are trading off quality for faster turnaround?
@randy   your thoughts on this?
]]></description><link>https://community.peptidecritic.com/topic/1191/sterility-testing-replacing-usp71-with-usp61</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://community.peptidecritic.com/topic/1191/sterility-testing-replacing-usp71-with-usp61</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[WisGal64]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Invalid Date</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[We tested peptide degradation so people can stop guessing]]></title><description><![CDATA[a beautiful post! thank you for that you guys and rodents are the best Clouse Salutes you
]]></description><link>https://community.peptidecritic.com/topic/1188/we-tested-peptide-degradation-so-people-can-stop-guessing</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://community.peptidecritic.com/topic/1188/we-tested-peptide-degradation-so-people-can-stop-guessing</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[Sable Darqness]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Invalid Date</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Nuances of Endotoxin Testing]]></title><description><![CDATA[I follow Krysia, enjoy reading her content.
]]></description><link>https://community.peptidecritic.com/topic/1157/nuances-of-endotoxin-testing</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://community.peptidecritic.com/topic/1157/nuances-of-endotoxin-testing</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[WisGal64]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Invalid Date</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Canadian Vendors]]></title><description><![CDATA[Purchased from Flawless. Thanks for your help!
]]></description><link>https://community.peptidecritic.com/topic/1154/canadian-vendors</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://community.peptidecritic.com/topic/1154/canadian-vendors</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[mspeer]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Invalid Date</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[CoAs, mfg date and exp date]]></title><description><![CDATA[Im no expert but thats a hard pass for me. Lets assume the COA's are for the batch being sold. If they have stock that old they are doing something wrong. Its not hard to make sales in this space. A tiktok post can sellout 300 bottles of reta in a couple days. So in the event they dont care enough to do that is it possible they dont care enough to keep them out of light and cool?
A good example is nexaph T-30 batches are usually 3.000 kits and those sell out in presale or shortly after release.
]]></description><link>https://community.peptidecritic.com/topic/1116/coas-mfg-date-and-exp-date</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://community.peptidecritic.com/topic/1116/coas-mfg-date-and-exp-date</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[Randy]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Invalid Date</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Peptide Handbook 1st &amp; 2nd edition]]></title><description><![CDATA[it opened! I will check it out later today!
]]></description><link>https://community.peptidecritic.com/topic/1106/peptide-handbook-1st-2nd-edition</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://community.peptidecritic.com/topic/1106/peptide-handbook-1st-2nd-edition</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[brandenscheidecker]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Invalid Date</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[NextGen and EZpeptides CoAs]]></title><description><![CDATA[@MS I can put whatever label i want on a vial and send it in....or i can handwrite the name of the sample and send it in as soon as its produced.
Dont worry about the hand writing. EZ has a different seal and cap color for each batch. You dont see the same seal and cap color on a compound in the same year. Ive only seen a repeat once in all my time. You can also buy kits without labels from their sister company nexaph. Significant discount, same tests, no labels
]]></description><link>https://community.peptidecritic.com/topic/1076/nextgen-and-ezpeptides-coas</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://community.peptidecritic.com/topic/1076/nextgen-and-ezpeptides-coas</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[Randy]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Invalid Date</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Finnrick vs Vendor COA’s]]></title><description><![CDATA[@MyB that makes sense. we've seen a vendor use krause for a new shipment recently and they tested 20% under on a few things. shot the samples over to jano and AFI and it tested within 3% of the expected fill.
]]></description><link>https://community.peptidecritic.com/topic/1048/finnrick-vs-vendor-coa-s</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://community.peptidecritic.com/topic/1048/finnrick-vs-vendor-coa-s</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[Randy]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Invalid Date</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[AHK-cu Hair thinning experiment]]></title><description><![CDATA[i dont use a preservative myself with the ordinary serums. Keep mine on the bathroom counter.
]]></description><link>https://community.peptidecritic.com/topic/1027/ahk-cu-hair-thinning-experiment</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://community.peptidecritic.com/topic/1027/ahk-cu-hair-thinning-experiment</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[Randy]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Invalid Date</pubDate></item></channel></rss>