Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (Zephyr)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Peptide Critic Community

Peptide Critic Community

  1. Randy the Rats Research Forum
  2. Peptide Discussion
  3. Nexaph 3rd Party Testing
Prize
Red, White & Blue V2 Pens
Ends in
4347 entries · 1000 participants
Enter →

Nexaph 3rd Party Testing

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Peptide Discussion
glp2-tbeginner-questionlab-test
39 Posts 14 Posters 372 Views 2 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • N Offline
    N Offline
    Nuncles
    wrote last edited by
    #1

    Newbie question. If this has been asked already, please direct me to the proper posts.

    I just purchased the pre-order of NXP-2P 30mg from Nexaph. Only 1 kit if that matters. What is everyone's thoughts on vendor sponsored testing vs the independent third party from places on Telegram like JLC Testing or Montana Peptide Private Testing?

    This is my understanding. There are additional costs involved for the independent testing and they may test for more stuff like endotoxins, heavy metals, and such. The vendor sponsored is paid by Nexaph (correct me if I'm wrong) and essentially just validates the Nexaph provided COA. So do you think that the vendor sponsored testing is good enough or is it worth the investment to join in on one of the third party test groups?

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • M Online
      M Online
      markgroce
      wrote last edited by
      #2

      Nexpah for the most part uses Janoshik for batch testing. What's the issue? I may be missing something here as well...just trying to understand it.

      N 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • M markgroce

        Nexpah for the most part uses Janoshik for batch testing. What's the issue? I may be missing something here as well...just trying to understand it.

        N Offline
        N Offline
        Nuncles
        wrote last edited by Nuncles
        #3

        @markgroce I assumed that the third party testing is a result some vendors supplying fake COA's and this is just to validate that Nexaph is not.

        1 Reply Last reply
        1
        • S Offline
          S Offline
          Shaqdiesel
          wrote last edited by
          #4

          Nexaph is highly tested. You can even find 3rd party testing which gets into endos and other more extensive testing on TG.

          1 Reply Last reply
          2
          • M Online
            M Online
            markgroce
            wrote last edited by
            #5

            That's a valid concern, and why Janoshik keeps all the COA's they've done public so you can personally verify it. Go to https://janoshik.com/verification/. Plug in the Task Number and Unique Key Verification located on the Nexpah COA and confirm it's the same as the one Janoshik has.

            S 1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • R Online
              R Online
              ResearchCat
              wrote last edited by
              #6

              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.

              100% Natty. You know, aside from the Klow, Tesa, Tirz, CJC/Ipa, SS-31, Semax, Dihexa, Epitalon, MOTS-C, creatine, Cheetos, protein shakes, and a holocaust of chicken thighs.

              S N 2 Replies Last reply
              0
              • M markgroce

                That's a valid concern, and why Janoshik keeps all the COA's they've done public so you can personally verify it. Go to https://janoshik.com/verification/. Plug in the Task Number and Unique Key Verification located on the Nexpah COA and confirm it's the same as the one Janoshik has.

                S Online
                S Online
                Stevepep
                wrote last edited by
                #7

                @markgroce just scan the QR code

                M 1 Reply Last reply
                1
                • R ResearchCat

                  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.

                  S Online
                  S Online
                  Stevepep
                  wrote last edited by
                  #8

                  @ResearchCat the endotoxin testing is an interesting topic. According to the Jano guy with purity levels well over 90 pct it’s impossible for the toxins to be high enough not to pass so it’s unnecessary testing.

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  1
                  • S Stevepep

                    @markgroce just scan the QR code

                    M Online
                    M Online
                    markgroce
                    wrote last edited by
                    #9

                    @Stevepep said:

                    @markgroce just scan the QR code

                    Or that... 😆

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    1
                    • R ResearchCat

                      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.

                      N Offline
                      N Offline
                      Nuncles
                      wrote last edited by Nuncles
                      #10

                      @ResearchCat said:

                      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.

                      T 1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • WesEqualshXcW Offline
                        WesEqualshXcW Offline
                        WesEqualshXc
                        wrote last edited by
                        #11

                        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.

                        “Research your own experience.
                        Absorb what is useful.
                        Reject what is useless.
                        Add what is essentially your own.”

                        • Bruce Lee
                        S 1 Reply Last reply
                        1
                        • S Online
                          S Online
                          Stevepep
                          wrote last edited by Stevepep
                          #12

                          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.

                          vpeptidesV RandyR 2 Replies Last reply
                          -1
                          • R Online
                            R Online
                            ResearchCat
                            wrote last edited by
                            #13

                            @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.

                            100% Natty. You know, aside from the Klow, Tesa, Tirz, CJC/Ipa, SS-31, Semax, Dihexa, Epitalon, MOTS-C, creatine, Cheetos, protein shakes, and a holocaust of chicken thighs.

                            1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • M Online
                              M Online
                              markgroce
                              wrote last edited by markgroce
                              #14

                              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?

                              S 1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • M markgroce

                                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?

                                S Online
                                S Online
                                Stevepep
                                wrote last edited by
                                #15

                                @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

                                M N 2 Replies Last reply
                                0
                                • S Stevepep

                                  @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

                                  M Online
                                  M Online
                                  markgroce
                                  wrote last edited by
                                  #16

                                  @Stevepep said:

                                  @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

                                  Damn.

                                  1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • S Stevepep

                                    @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

                                    N Offline
                                    N Offline
                                    Nuncles
                                    wrote last edited by
                                    #17

                                    @Stevepep Sorry to hear that but I appreciate you sharing. You took a hit for educating everyone.

                                    1 Reply Last reply
                                    0
                                    • S Stevepep

                                      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.

                                      vpeptidesV Offline
                                      vpeptidesV Offline
                                      vpeptides
                                      wrote last edited by vpeptides
                                      #18

                                      @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.

                                      J B 2 Replies Last reply
                                      -1
                                      • WesEqualshXcW WesEqualshXc

                                        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.

                                        S Offline
                                        S Offline
                                        Shaqdiesel
                                        wrote last edited by
                                        #19

                                        @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.

                                        1 Reply Last reply
                                        1
                                        • vpeptidesV vpeptides

                                          @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.

                                          J Offline
                                          J Offline
                                          JtCjEfF
                                          wrote last edited by
                                          #20

                                          @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

                                          1 Reply Last reply
                                          0

                                          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
                                          Reply
                                          • Reply as topic
                                          Log in to reply
                                          • Oldest to Newest
                                          • Newest to Oldest
                                          • Most Votes


                                          • Login

                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • Categories
                                          • Recent
                                          • Tags
                                          • Popular
                                          • World
                                          • Users
                                          • Groups