Peptide Critic Community

@Stevepep OK, excuse my curiosity, I ran AI on your profile

Stevepep post analysis — Nexaph / EZ Peptides mentions
Went through the full post log (645 total posts) and searched for every mention of Nexaph or EZ Peptides.

Total posts: 645
Mention Nexaph/EZ Peptides at all: 74 (~11.5%)
Clearly praising/endorsing them: 53 (~8.2%)

TL;DR: About 8% of all his posts (53/645) are direct positive endorsements of Nexaph or EZ Peptides — lines like "Nexaph is the GOAT," "Nexaph or die," "I love you Nexaph and EZ," "you can't go wrong with those two," "my go to," calling them "the standard" or "the most vetted."
The other ~21 mentions are more neutral — testing/logistics talk that references the vendors without an explicit compliment.

@Jake_PepTron that is my understanding as well. A trustworthy vendor is a lot more important than a reliable COA. There are so many ways to get a good COA for a crappy product.

@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.