DwightTheDelight
GLP-1 Enthusiast
This company seems to be very divisive in here, but I was wondering if anyone who has ordered from them has sent any of their vials off for testing that they would be willing to share?
Thanks
Thanks
Nexaph testing
- Thread starter DwightTheDelight
- Start date
Just got this back last night on the BPC-157. They got the vial yesterday morning and had the results to me last night already- very impressed with the speed. I also sent away for sterility but that will be a couple of weeks. Results are pretty much right in line with the lab results posted on their site.
nonyabizznez
GLP-1 Specialist
Check out Janoshik's website. Many current Nexaph results (and a great place to find sources 🧐)
Finally got back to post the sterility test results for Nexaph. I was very pleased with the results as I had sent in 2 different vials- a BPC-157 and a MOTS-c. I figured it would give me a better view of the overall quality of the products. Actually very pleasantly surprised they passed both.
GimmeABreak
Rabbit-hole Explorer
I think I have the same MOTS-C thank you for testing it. Didi you also test mass/purity?
No I didn't. I tested the BPC-157 for mass and purity. The BPC came back spot on to what they had for the COA on their website.
Looks like there is frequent mismatches between user testing purity and vendor testing purity with this vendor. Possible causes:
- issues with rapid degradation in the time between their tests and user tests
- inconsistent quality within a batch that was not caught in their initial testing
- commingling tested batches with untested batches
- selling peptides from a known badly testing batch under a good test
- issues with rapid degradation in the time between their tests and user tests
- inconsistent quality within a batch that was not caught in their initial testing
- commingling tested batches with untested batches
- selling peptides from a known badly testing batch under a good test
I agree, your 3rd and 4th possible causes are more likely, also all 3 of his tested Ipa had the same cap/crimp color combos, so you have no idea how to dose. This doesn't look good for a business model if you want the consumer to trust the product.
GimmeABreak
Rabbit-hole Explorer
Isn't it common to see small variations in the same batch? I have seen this with most of the COA's I have reviewed where multiple vials were tested from the same batch.
So roughly a 20% overfill with minimal variations between vials. You could dose at the 12mg but I would probably dose at 10-11mg.
Have there been cases of wide differences in user tested vs. vendor tested that were tested by the same lab? I think it's a little less reliable comparison if tested by different labs unless the variation is significant.
Not a Nexaph shill, just a satisfied customer (today).
Fill variation is common, and generally addressed by overfilling a bit so the supplier doesn’t fall below the labeled fill. Purity variation is not common, and you can’t just add extra to account for a miss on purity.
Youre right that purity reports between labs will vary. I haven’t seen the ipa report but the other sub-99% reports I’ve seen were from Jano, which is the lab most suppliers use for their tests because it’s the most trusted.
Not really a problem with small fill variations or even purity as long as you know what you have. You can decide whether to toss it or use it, more of a credibility issue when one of us sends it out for testing and it don't match Nexaph's jano test. I have some from the last batch sold, and now not sure about fill or purity. Consistency is the key. Now anybody who bought from the last batch will have to wonder or send it for testing.
I was wondering about the degradation with poor handling during shipping or hotter areas or such. My curiosity was peaked with the results of the big Amopure test results where the purity ranged what seemed like a lot but as someone had pointed out was less than 1% though it ranged from 98.8 to 99.7. They would have all come from the same batches but maybe the few outliers had a rougher time in transport or such. Does throwing them in the freezer the minute you get them, then thawing for a trip to the lab hurt things at all? Is it better to not freeze if you are going to test anyway? But then they're sitting there waiting until you get around to shipping them 🤔 I saw a test result on peppy from a while back where they tested QSC with a larger amount of vials and the same thing was evident. Seems like it swings more than it ought to unless something happens to the vial along the route. I test but decided to give the benefit of the doubt for up to .9% after seeing the amopure and qsc results.
GimmeABreak
Rabbit-hole Explorer
i recently sent two vials to be tested by Peptide Test from two different vendors. Tuk Angel (ASC) and SRY, the SRY shipment took about 10 days longer to receive so and I put the ASC vials in the a thermos in the freezer at about -3 degrees F (average). Both vials tested with great results. Not necessarily an A/B test but the ASC vial went through at least one freeze/thaw cycle. I plan to test again next October to see how they hold up after a year stored at -8.7F (I bought a dedicated freezer).
The results of both tests are posted on this site but they are impossible to find. For SOME reason lowly users like me are not permitted to post test results in the test results channel. I don't want to post again in the public square but can DM them if you're interested.
If you are buying from nexaph, and if you aren't on Telegram, you might want to be, Nexaph has a telegram, and it's quite active, where Cain updates when prebuys will happen, posts all the vendor COAs, but a 3d party channel has been set up there too for third party testing with the buyers participating, tests seem mostly to be sent to TrustePoint Analytics via Peptide Test, but some to Jano too, I think, Also there is testing for nexaph and all the other vendors in the PTDS testing server - but it does require an onboarding or vetting process, and participation in the testing.
Last edited:
noteablequotable
GLP-1 Specialist
I think it's worth pointing this out, only because you used this specific language, but 98% isn't really "bad". It's def useable, especially if you're filtering. It's just not what you would call "ultra high quality".
I also think it's a little incautious to ascribe specific reasons to the disparity without any investigation or specific information about why those disparities may have occurred. I'm preparing to share a bunch of results from Nexaph and ASC over the next few weeks. Some of the results are in the 98% range, some are 99%+, but I'm also noticing small disparities. The Mazdutide I bought has a quantity and purity above what's listed on the COA on their website. That's not bad, but given how small the variation is, also seems normal.
If they’re promising 99% to their customers then they should be able to deliver that. If it is meaningless then they should remove the marketing language about it. Vendors making these purity promises do themselves no favors if they want people to believe sub-99% purity is all good when they screw it up, especially when their target market is newbies.
noteablequotable
GLP-1 Specialist
Nexaph promises 99%, ASC considers 98% acceptable and does not guarantee 99%. So far as I know if anyone contacts Cain about a vial that tests below 99% he makes it right (refund or replacement) and does spot testing by reaching out to other people who also purchased the same batch. Given all of the different factors that can impact purity I don't know what else we should ask for.
If you need to test every batch you get to ensure it is above 99% since some people keep testing on a regular basis under 99%, does that not automatically make you want to test every batch you receive (which in turn increases the cost of the kit significantly)?
noteablequotable
GLP-1 Specialist
That's fair. Is there a vendor you trust to deliver 99%+ quality 100% of the time? The only one I can think of is QSC (maybe), but they have horrible customer service and you're SOL if there is an issue with your delivery.
Can you share some examples?
peptideusername
Moderator
That’s because, after the test is completed, the option to pay a little more and have the test result published is offered to the customer. And as @exploitedworkerbee pointed out (on another forum), that leads to cherry picking results. Have you ever noticed that there are only good test results on the public page of Jano’s website?
I would argue that right now, until that policy changes, the Jano site is one of the worst places to look for sources because you’re only going to find results that the vendors want you to find.
I definitely agree that the "public" ones are the worst place to look at. This is why third party tests are so important, and why communities sharing their results is critical.
... and to be completely clear to everyone here: we're not only talking about Nexaph results. We're talking about everyone listed there.
zpped
Moderator
I think you're putting way too much weight on what purity really means in these tests. But if you think QSC delivers high purity numbers you're very mistaken.
noteablequotable
GLP-1 Specialist
That was the impression I had based on comments I've seen but I've only seen comments. 100% ready to defer to you on that.
I think 98% is okay and I'm not mad about it. I don't think I've overestimated the value of purity at all.
You're in Peppy's right? There is currently a super long thread about them refusing to help a customer with their package. It's a great example of why I would never work with them.
Nikki nik
GLP-1 Specialist
I saw that in Peppys. I wonder why though
noteablequotable
GLP-1 Specialist
QSC honestly just doesn't care. People continue to buy from them when they treat individual customers poorly so they're basically getting away with it.
Nikki nik
GLP-1 Specialist
I've witnessed the poor treatment. Just did my first gyc order I may stick with them
