Give me your opinions on my test protocol

[Labcat]

For peptides that are likely stable being frozen as recon, what do you think of reconstituting all the vials in a kit (or 2), pulling an identical specified volume aliquot from each vial and putting those all together into a fresh vial for a COA determining identity and mg (or concentration). Then you would make further vials of the same mix guesstimating 30 days worth (or whatever you’re comfortable with) and freeze those.

I was thinking this would let you know for sure if your kit had the correct peptide in every vial, and you would know the exact concentration of your particular set of randomly filled vials.

The benefit of this would be that all your vials get tested, and you would know for sure what strength you were using.

One protential problem might be that the testing lab gives no significant digits after the decimal. (I saw ProRx released a COA and all it said was 18mg, truly lame.) and of course the other potential problem is finding a high quality lab. As far as I know Janoshik doesn’t accept liquid samples.

 

[Grogu]

I think it would be tough to find a lab to test reconstituted peptides because the reconstitution process brings in all types of variables into the test, such as the quality of the reconstitution agent, degradation, temperature, pH, etc.

But if you were able to find a lab, the method would at least tell you if there is a major issue with the batch or batches, because the results would be the average across all the vials. The test wouldn’t be able to provide any assurance on the strength of individual vials just the average strength and average purity across all vials.

Just say you tested the combined vial from 1 kit of T60 and 9 vials had 70mg and 1 vial had 0mg, the average would be 63mg and the results would look good. Except there is a vial with zero peptides [or some other peptide, which is probably the main concern].

Or if you tests two kits of T60 and one batch has 70mg per vial and the other batch had 0mg per vial. Test would come back with 35mg mass. Then all the vials would be trash because you wouldn’t know which batch has zero mg. Vendor unlikely to reimburse since not a Janoshik test and would argue that the test was with reconstituted peptides and they didn’t do the reconstitution.

 

[yrrdead]

You might see if there are any nearby labs that would lyophilize your sample for you. I also think even without testing this is a neat idea to "standardize" your kit.

I think for someone with the right mindset, training and equipment that this is pretty cool. The other 99.9% of us are going to "send it". I'm looking at you @Airborne Daddy

It is easy for some people to fall into the rabbit hole of needing certainty. You obviously have training and knowledge, so you know that this certainty is an illusion. There is always some % error. Even in the best factories with the best equipment. This paralysis by analysis exists everywhere, fitness, nutrition, business, investing, etc. At some point you need to give up the search for "perfect knowledge" and just NIKE that mother. I know I'm like this, I want to keep researching, save money, be efficient, etc. Though its usually just a way to procrastinate from making an actual decision. At least for me.

 

[Labcat]

I think it would be tough to find a lab to test reconstituted peptides because the reconstitution process brings in all types of variables into the test, such as the quality of the reconstitution agent, degradation, temperature, pH, etc.

But if you were able to find a lab, the method would at least tell you if there is a major issue with the batch or batches, because the results would be the average across all the vials. The test wouldn’t be able to provide any assurance on the strength of individual vials just the average strength and average purity across all vials.

Just say you tested the combined vial from 1 kit of T60 and 9 vials had 70mg and 1 vial had 0mg, the average would be 63mg and the results would look good. Except there is a vial with zero peptides [or some other peptide, which is probably the main concern].

Or if you tests two kits of T60 and one batch has 70mg per vial and the other batch had 0mg per vial. Test would come back with 35mg mass. Then all the vials would be trash because you wouldn’t know which batch has zero mg. Vendor unlikely to reimburse since not a Janoshik test and would argue that the test was with reconstituted peptides and they didn’t do the reconstitution.

Definitely the purpose of the test would be to use the vials, just making sure that there was no major identity issue. If the group average came back at 35 instead of the 70, indeed , I would not know which vials were zero or if they were all half filled, I’d only be verifying for myself how to dose the aggregate. (Rather than making a claim for replacement) Technically my kits have already been tested by my US reseller whose business model is that they themselves tested by sending a few vials to jano before listing for sale. I would not myself be bothering to ask for replacement, (though I might let the seller know), I would just more willing to put it into my own body once I was assured was nothing else truly objectionable identified. In fact, I’d already have blended all the vials before freezing them. If it was unusable I’d be out the cost of the test, hospira, and vials/filters/syringes.

Which labs do you think might care that the reconstitution method is done by an amateur? (I see your point that some labs might want to cultivate business from sellers and not want to look like they put out too many low reports. The first time I saw a published paper putposely not identify who sold the contaminated products they tested because they were building a business to sell their testing service to manufacturers, I definitely nonplused.) hadn’t thought of that angle here, only that compounders who claim a COA on their product had found someone. (I imagine medspas don’t even do that step)

 

[Labcat]

You might see if there are any nearby labs that would lyophilize your sample for you. I also think even without testing this is a neat idea to "standardize" your kit.

I think for someone with the right mindset, training and equipment that this is pretty cool. The other 99.9% of us are going to "send it". I'm looking at you @Airborne Daddy

It is easy for some people to fall into the rabbit hole of needing certainty. You obviously have training and knowledge, so you know that this certainty is an illusion. There is always some % error. Even in the best factories with the best equipment. This paralysis by analysis exists everywhere, fitness, nutrition, business, investing, etc. At some point you need to give up the search for "perfect knowledge" and just NIKE that mother. I know I'm like this, I want to keep researching, save money, be efficient, etc. Though its usually just a way to procrastinate from making an actual decision. At least for me.

Yeah, I am ultimately wondering at what point do I have enough certainty, I know that many people would not test these kits at all. (I might be sensitive because I have $800 of compounded that I think is not as represented, and that pushed me to gray even faster. And all y’all helped me figure out the whole vetting of sources in timely fashion.)
In fact I do an error analysis with my recon/filter (I filtered my compound due to the 483.) and for sure if all my error components (just from the 3-5cc transfer syringes and filters not comoletely emptying for instance) fall one way, instead of the other way, my final concentration can be theoretically up to 15% off from expected… which if you isolate the inaccuracy of your u-100/u-30 lines when pinning at high concentrations, I might not be even be able to even draw to an accuracy that differentiates that. So I do suppose my only real benefit is assurance I am putting what molecule I think I am into my body, not a different one, and not zero.
Don’t think I am not tempted to just inject that kit, rather than put in this work lol, as much as I enjoy this whole hobby. I guess part of me is wanting to have more assurance than may be quite practical.

Also, the longer I wait, the more chance I’ll come across info that someone smarter than me posted that will make me think aboit this more clearly, i can see how eager I am to want to believe I have.a pep that works, that is clean, that my vendor is reliable, etc. All that marketing works on me, placebo effect, etc. I’m resigned to be out the money at least… for the hope. I’d just feel stupid if I missed something and pinned something stupid.

 

[Gr33dyOctopus]

Lol! 😅🤣😂

 

[Labcat]

You might see if there are any nearby labs that would lyophilize your sample for you. I also think even without testing this is a neat idea to "standardize" your kit.

I think for someone with the right mindset, training and equipment that this is pretty cool. The other 99.9% of us are going to "send it". I'm looking at you @Airborne Daddy

It is easy for some people to fall into the rabbit hole of needing certainty. You obviously have training and knowledge, so you know that this certainty is an illusion. There is always some % error. Even in the best factories with the best equipment. This paralysis by analysis exists everywhere, fitness, nutrition, business, investing, etc. At some point you need to give up the search for "perfect knowledge" and just NIKE that mother. I know I'm like this, I want to keep researching, save money, be efficient, etc. Though its usually just a way to procrastinate from making an actual decision. At least for me.

Talk to me more about lyophilizing! Do pharmaceutical lyophilizers baby their specimens, doing the chemistry to stabilize them and whatnot? Somehow I envision some guys in a garage with a commercial freeze dryer putting my vials in next to their beef jerky.

 

[Grogu]

Which labs do you think might care that the reconstitution method is done by an amateur? (I see your point that some labs might want to cultivate business from sellers and not want to look like they put out too many low reports. The first time I saw a published paper putposely not identify who sold the contaminated products they tested because they were building a business to sell their testing service to manufacturers, I definitely nonplused.) hadn’t thought of that angle here, only that compounders who claim a COA on their product had found someone. (I imagine medspas don’t even do that step)

I definitely don't think you'll have a problem if you want a vial tested for volume and purity. I was just thinking that some people have sent compounded tirzepatide for testing, so I searched the reddit board and see that ProRx recently posted a COA and indicated that their 3rd party tester was Prompt Praxis Labs.

Laboratory Services - Analytical Testing Labs

We provide Rapid Sterility & BET Testing, Research & Development, Analytical Testing, Development and Validation Services.

promptpraxislabs.com

I'm also sure that PeptideTest could do it too.

 

[yrrdead]

Hmm how long before @Labcat is a supplier?

https://www.peptide.com/peptide-synthesizers/eclipse/

https://www.peptide.com/sharp-freeze/

 

[Labcat]

Hmm how long before @Labcat is a supplier?

https://www.peptide.com/peptide-synthesizers/eclipse/

https://www.peptide.com/sharp-freeze/

I wish! 🤣🤣🤣.

Seriously though, it aggravates me that we have to go thru these convolutions to get things because runaway capitalism pretends it’s for our safety that we can’t have access to clean, above board, open-to-daylight, suppliers of simple molecules that are almost accessible to anyone with a garage and some chemistry knowledge. (Well knowledge is still the big barrier)

 

[Labcat]

I definitely don't think you'll have a problem if you want a vial tested for volume and purity. I was just thinking that some people have sent compounded tirzepatide for testing, so I searched the reddit board and see that ProRx recently posted a COA and indicated that their 3rd party tester was Prompt Praxis Labs.

Laboratory Services - Analytical Testing Labs

We provide Rapid Sterility & BET Testing, Research & Development, Analytical Testing, Development and Validation Services.

promptpraxislabs.com

I'm also sure that PeptideTest could do it too.

I did see that about ProRx’s COAs. Thanks for reminding me who the lab was.
It bothered me greatly that the reports had zero significant digits to the right of the decimal point. To my mind that makes the whole lab feel like somebody’s garage hobby, and I automatically dropped them to the bottom of my list, but maybe they’re worth talking to. Though maybe they only work with large scale producers under contract and are fine tuning their reports. It’s very interesting to me that this whole glp business has made me reverse my instincts about whether a big big business under contract is more reliable and honest.

 

[Grogu]

I did see that about ProRx’s COAs. Thanks for reminding me who the lab was.

At least for the COAs that I looked at, it seemed to me that ProRx transcribed the results from underlying Prompt Praxis COAs. That's more disturbing to me than the numbers. ProRx really should have just have provided the actual COAs from Prompt Praxis. So I think those rounded numbers are from ProRx rather than Prompt Praxis.

 

[Labcat]

At least for the COAs that I looked at, it seemed to me that ProRx transcribed the results from underlying Prompt Praxis COAs. That's more disturbing to me than the numbers. ProRx really should have just have provided the actual COAs from Prompt Praxis. So I think those rounded numbers are from ProRx rather than Prompt Praxis.

That would be much better (well, except for what it says abiut ProRx, as you say). The reports I saw looked similar in format to what Jano shows, with boxes for the results. I couldn’t tell whether it was the original or not. I’ll put it on my list to look at them again.
You know what they say about believing the first time when people show you who they are. Not going to be able to trust anything they say without seeing independent verification. Jano posting their own reports is a decent service.

 

[Sasquatch]

The person that can come up with a simple pass/fail home test, like maybe the covid test, can essentially write his or her own winning lottery ticket.
The scary part is, while I'm writing this, I'm thinking someone's going to sell a fake home test this afternoon.

 

[Labcat]

The person that can come up with a simple pass/fail home test, like maybe the covid test, can essentially write his or her own winning lottery ticket.
The scary part is, while I'm writing this, I'm thinking someone's going to sell a fake home test this afternoon.

Actually it couldn’t be impossibly hard to make a color assay that recognizes a peptide affirmatively, that’s what antibodies do. Then making a panel of them to test for different commonly requested identities all at once. Camera apps in our handheld supercomputers to read the intensity and wavelengths to give identities and rough concentration.
Another thing the fda protects us from… development of, as well as access to any potential internationally developed testing technology. Of course they’ve created this demand so now you’ve got me looking for who will develop this first. It can’t be in the US of course