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
GLP-1 Specialist
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
Very interested, everyone makes on how fragile the peptides are and I've read reports swinging in both directions. I was trying to find info on degradation after extended storage but with the newness of this whole GLP research that's hard to find. I have about 18-24 months stash and was trying to decide buy more or not 🤔 I have a ways to go yet (probably take at least a year at this rate) and then I NEVER want to go back to the way I was.
RaeR3
New Member
There is a telegram that is going test groups going on for T30, T15 and reta 12
zpped
GLP-1 Specialist
"purity" is super important, but you know that the "purity" listed on a hplc test result doesn't mean (tirzeptitide/everything else in the vial). In this case it means (tirzepetide/things that are very similar to tirzepetide)
So the purity number on the test is an indicator of degradation and current efficacy, but it doesn't indicate anything at all about safety.
geoguy78
GLP-1 Specialist
QSC is a funny one. I've only dealt with them once and it was a pleasant and seamless experience. But I think people need to go into the deal with eyes wide open, and you need to read Tracy's terms of sale down to the letter. If it's not in writing, he's not doing it. If he put it in writing but it's not specific, for example "purity guaranteed" but there's not a percent value specified, don't expect him to make good. I do think there are some clear pro's to using QSC and I wouldn't deter a newbie to the gray world from making them their first purchase. They are probably the biggest seller by volume, and there are probably more third party tests floating out there for QSC products than any other vendor. Just based on the sheer volume of independent testing done, and the volume of reviews, I would be feel ok (definitely not warm and fuzzy!) pinning QSC peps without a test if I was desperate for a glp-1 and didn't have the money to pay for my own testing. I'm pretty confident that they aren't going to sell me something that will kill me. They have a long history of selling AAS to the muscle crowd that predates glp-1s so there's that history to go off of as well. Lord help you though if something goes wrong with your shipment, because there's a decent chance you just threw money away.
I'm currently debating stocking up on more tirz and probably won't use QSC though. I like diversity and the batch I bought tested at the low end of 99% and upper end of 98%. Not bad, but I think they can be doing better than that 🙄
noteablequotable
GLP-1 Specialist
The fact that they won't help you if anything goes wrong is exactly why I wouldn't recommend to someone new. Most people entering this space ultimately come here because because they don't have enough money to pay the sticker price being charged by pharmaceutical companies or MedSpas. Getting robbed on your first purchase because QSC doesn't care that you didn't get what you were promised is a horrible experience. I'd send someone to Skye or Tydes for their immediate needs before I sent them to QSC.
geoguy78
GLP-1 Specialist
Are there really that many people getting screwed though? Yes, it's a risk, but it doesn't seem to happen that often. And we're in a bubble here too, a couple forums and chat groups where the horror stories are inevitably going to come out and get amplified. I've seen Tracy act like an ass and treat a customer like garbage, there's no excuse for that. But I still put QSC in my "reasonably safe to do business with" category.
I really feel like domestic vendors like the ones you mentioned just overcharge for a false sense of security, but that's just my opinion.
noteablequotable
GLP-1 Specialist
I haven't documented all of the times QSC has screwed someone over but the folks over at Peppy's have been monitoring their behavior closely and actually have a warning ⚠️ on their vendor page.
Domestic vendors absolutely charge a premium but they also take very good care of their customers. I have first hand experience with that. USPS marked one of my packages from Skye as delivered without dropping off the box and I was really upset because that order wasn't cheap. I reached out to them and not only were they super nice, they promised to reship the package if it wasn't delivered within a few days. I waited and the box was ultimately delivered, but that kind of support is worth its weight in gold.
those domestic vendor 800+% margins do make it easier for them to eat a reship. You’re right though, if you’re just dipping your toe in then skye et al would be a good place to start. But don’t get all excited and buy 30 vials from those guys, suck up the overseas experience when you’re filling your hoardy hole.
peptideusername
Moderator
A true wordsmith.
SunnyDispo
New Member
I would even go as far to say your first purchases as a newbie should be domestic while you continue to read and gather information. If you get screwed it’s not because there was a lack of information available.
nonyabizznez
GLP-1 Specialist
I agree 100% with what you are saying and it's becoming more true by the day with Janoshik's public postings... Wasn't always as obvious as it is now though (it's a shame) I stand corrected.
Sorry, haven't read all the comments, but about what subject?
I’ve never seen a test below 98. Something. I guessing that several have been tested older than than a month. I have the 10mg batch that has been the subject of many discussions. He is sending replacement for it somewhere around November 26th. I hope someone ask for a donation of one of my vials to test 6 months down the road, that would be a really good indication of how or if it is degrading. I have about 7 months of compound in stock to use up first.
noteablequotable
GLP-1 Specialist
Stored how?
Apparently nexa/baba/ezp lowered purity guarantee to 98% for everything other than glp1s, guess they got tired of having to keep replacing all that substandard product they’ve been sending out.
noteablequotable
GLP-1 Specialist
Not to keep arguing this, but is 98% actually substandard?
If they set a standard by saying they replace under 99% then by definition yes, 98% is substandard.
noteablequotable
GLP-1 Specialist
Ty. I am just hyper aware of the fact that these conversations will outlive us and someone might read through in the future. Thought it would be helpful to confirm that the your issue wasn't 98% purity vials, but Nexaph changing their standards.
