Nexaph testing
-
@denti it’s appears it has to do with updated control samples. Janoshik updates their control samples which essentially are 100pct purity. They are always improving testing and some labs don’t even use a control sample hmm wonder which ones. I don’t completely get this explanation does that mean it was really always 97pct in other batches but the control samples weren’t up to the standard. I am kind of lost on this one.
Bottom line you buy from another source who uses a lab you can’t rely on that says 99pct or buy from Nexaph and it’s 97pct. We already have seen the last batch freedom COA. If it makes us feel better we can just forget the Janoshik one.
-
@Stevepep that explanation is weird, how updating the control sample explains that extra bump on Mass Spectroscopy chart? It is a peak of a different mass. The new sample could affect ID test, HPLC, not a purity test, to my understanding.
@bobs outside my area of expertise I would think a 100 percent pure standard used to calibrate equipment would have a big impact on purity levels I would think that’s part of the purpose. The equipment is calibrated to the pure peptide. The blip I have no clue what that is I am going to just copy it and ask Janoshik I wouldn’t 100 pct trust AI on this stuff. We are finding AI to be wrong very often in my company
-
@bobs outside my area of expertise I would think a 100 percent pure standard used to calibrate equipment would have a big impact on purity levels I would think that’s part of the purpose. The equipment is calibrated to the pure peptide. The blip I have no clue what that is I am going to just copy it and ask Janoshik I wouldn’t 100 pct trust AI on this stuff. We are finding AI to be wrong very often in my company
@Stevepep this is not my expertise either, I am an engineer and a "citizen scientist". But it is a general knowledge how to read these distribution charts, integrating AUC at different masses. I guess, if you test a 100% pure compound, you should see one narrow peak. Having two peaks side by side should indicate molecules of two different masses at some concentration. I am puzzled to see how calibration may affect it. A less sensitive equipment may place both peaks too close together though to see them separately. Again, just my speculations here.
-
@Stevepep this is not my expertise either, I am an engineer and a "citizen scientist". But it is a general knowledge how to read these distribution charts, integrating AUC at different masses. I guess, if you test a 100% pure compound, you should see one narrow peak. Having two peaks side by side should indicate molecules of two different masses at some concentration. I am puzzled to see how calibration may affect it. A less sensitive equipment may place both peaks too close together though to see them separately. Again, just my speculations here.
@bobs my understanding is the equipment is calibrated at many labs to just look for the peptide without any reference it’s a catalogue standard. The reference standard allows the equipment to fine tune for the peptide and only the peptide so without the reference that other blip that is close to the long arrow would be just filtered and included as part of the peptide. It was described as shooting a shotgun rather than a 22. By the way my non technical explanation may suck but essentially those other small peaks that are close to the identity of the peptide are filtered out. Best I can do. So another lab would just include it as part of the purity and the purity would be 99pct plus.
“Simply put the other molecule would be identified as part of the peptide without a solid reference sample due to it being so close in identity”That’s from a person who supplies this equipment
This explains why freedom showed 99pct plus and Janoshik was 97
-
The variance from a good quality lab using a high quality reference standard isn’t as high as you think. The difference is less than 5% and more commonly 2-3% So where you see 99.9% which is not an accurate figure it’s anywhere from 96 to 99 in that range simply because the equipment is looking at a larger range. So often you will see a peak down range outside of the filtered range.
Same person
-
-
It appears the previous batch of MOTS-C - MOT1007162026-20 was also in the 97% and change range on the Janoshik testing. Their most recent batch of MOTS-C MOT1008212026-21 is coming in mid 98% to low 99%.
-
It appears the previous batch of MOTS-C - MOT1007162026-20 was also in the 97% and change range on the Janoshik testing. Their most recent batch of MOTS-C MOT1008212026-21 is coming in mid 98% to low 99%.
@PeptideEd the previous batch they gave out discounts on I passed . I have this batch it hits
-
@Nuncles yes from pure lab peptides which was recommended from peptidedosages so I figured it was safe. I ended up with flu like systems I couldn’t get my head off the pillow for 2 days and an ISR that turned into a wound. I contacted them and they said it’s for research only. The good news is @randy called them out for their fake COA’s and I found this community.
If someone is buying a product for research only with a Freedom COA all of the information has been given to you in this group that it can’t be trusted. You have no one to blame but yourself if you end up having an adverse reaction. IMO you want to control what you can we can’t control the manufacturing but we can verify a COA and make sure it’s from a trustworthy lab if not get it tested ourselves. Otherwise you have lost control and you are taking a very unnecessary risk which could have severe consequences.
That’s enough for me to hear. I am trashing all of my Freedom tested peptides. Just not worth the risk.
-
@denti Depending on the quantities, is it worth sending samples out for your own testing?
-
-
-
@Stevepep Yeah. The testing lab space could use some more players. Jano and Vanguard are about the only options besides those you just named.
Lobster has posted some interesting Jano test results in his TG group. I don't know how to verify this as true, but he has posted COAs of his products from multiple labs and from Janoshik where he compares the results from Jano that were from samples that he sent and samples that Group Buy Testing Groups sent in of the same products from the same batch where. Jano's results were consistently lower for products with the Lobster name as the source versus private groups that didn't name him as the source. Supposedly the same batches of products getting different results depending on who sent them in. Makes you question some of the politics behind the labs. Who can you really trust?
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