noteablequotable
Registered
So we're left with two options regarding what actually happened here:
1.Nexaph is distributing poor quality peptides
2. Nexaph used a filler that damaged the quality of their product
Nexaph testing
- Thread starter DwightTheDelight
- Start date
So we're left with two options regarding what actually happened here:
1.Nexaph is distributing poor quality peptides
2. Nexaph used a filler that damaged the quality of their product
Yes that’s correct.
Which resulted in a poor quality peptide that he automatically replaced without users even needing to request replacement.
And to everyone acting like this whole thing is just some witch-hunt, I want to point out that the origin of it was this message from baba himself where he says Jano asked about major impurities, and that the reason was histidine:
https://glp1forum.com/threads/nexaph-first-purchase-retatrutide.1066/post-20586
Then, Jano discussed how histidine interacts with glp1s in unpredictable ways and he would advise baba not to give that to customers (which again, is precisely what baba told everyone he had done):
https://glp1forum.com/threads/nexaph-testing.1336/post-28777
There was only one conclusion to be reached based on all of that.
So kindly chill with the “oh no Cain is such a victim” simping here. None of it would have happened if he hadn’t been shipping poor quality products before testing (a sin he commits over and over and over), or if he knew what was in the vials that he sent people (since he apparently thought he had used histidine in the reta per the first link above).
https://glp1forum.com/threads/nexaph-first-purchase-retatrutide.1066/post-20586
Then, Jano discussed how histidine interacts with glp1s in unpredictable ways and he would advise baba not to give that to customers (which again, is precisely what baba told everyone he had done):
https://glp1forum.com/threads/nexaph-testing.1336/post-28777
There was only one conclusion to be reached based on all of that.
So kindly chill with the “oh no Cain is such a victim” simping here. None of it would have happened if he hadn’t been shipping poor quality products before testing (a sin he commits over and over and over), or if he knew what was in the vials that he sent people (since he apparently thought he had used histidine in the reta per the first link above).
This is false, Jano never advised against giving it to customers. He said he would advise me against using it in formulations just because they wont be able to test it right as its not a common excipient they are used to testing. That is the reason why i had to send them a sample of the histidine so they can test it properly against their own tests.
Either way, histidine was never used with GLP's. It is used with Tesamorelin and will continue to be used with that as we have found Tesamorelin is most stable with histidine as its buffer along with mannitol and sucrose.
OK, on re-interpreting the conversation I give you that he said he would advise you against using it because "it can, unlike traditional fillers, obscure impurities," not that you shouldn't sent it to customers. Although if this non-traditional filler (using Jano's words) is potentially obscuring impurities, should you be sending it to customers? I suppose that would be good for you, maybe not so much the customer.
noteablequotable
Registered
That was his obligation. As I said in my previous post:
Its non-traditional for THEM to test for. As the Chinese vendors they are used to testing for don't use it. I will link an article for you to read about histidine and maybe can give you some insight on why pharma companies that have FDA approved products use it.
noteablequotable
Registered
That doesn't quite align with what he said here:
Then why did he mention it interacting with GLP-1s in his comments? The comment seems to imply that it was used with GLP-1s and peptides other than Tesa.
How have a shown a lack of good judgement? I am transparent with what is used in our formulations and in this case maybe too transparent as this has become an issue.
Any issues that may arise from our products have been fixed and addressed.
Because i mentioned it may have been used with Reta, but it turned out that it wasn't used. It was me being too hasty in announcing the issue with the Reta batch which turned out to be nothing more than a bad freeze drying process that caused the degradation. Which in turn has been fixed and re shipped out to all customers with that affected batch.
Are you going to answer the questions or deflect? The answers are yes, yes, and yes per the vendor statement you made on another peptide platform. If the statement is false, please correct.
If it’s that typical to use for lyo’d peptides it’s hard to imagine Jano, who has been in this business for over a decade and is the biggest, never sees it. Maybe it’s typical in pharma formulations but you’re a midwestern peptide flipper, maybe stick to the stuff that is tried and true and leave the r and d to the guys who are running actual clinical trials.
noteablequotable
Registered
Cain, I'm going to be honest with you: this is exhausting. While your services are convenient and you are generally fair with your customers there is always some drama around your business practices, and the story about how things went off the rails is always convoluted and difficult to sort out.
Do you have proof from the manufacturer that the issue was with the way that batch of peptides was lyophilized?
I don't think the issue here is that you were too hasty in announcing the issue, it's that you didn't continuously provide us with updates, and you weren't transparent about why you were replacing vials. You could have easily avoided this issue by letting everyone know that you were wrong about the issue being caused by a new filler, explained that this was a manufacturing issue, and provided a timeline for replacement since that's what you did anyway.
Even if I assume there is no intentional wrongdoing here, I'm going to be a little harsh and say it looks like you aren't particularly good at managing your business and public communications.
Are you still working with the manufacturer who sent you a bad batch? That would have been something to announce too. I could never work with a company that cares so little about their own QA that they send me bad product.
What are you talking about? I literally told you Tesamorelin's FDA formulation includes histidine. What R & D are you even referring to? I'm not sure if you are actually asking legit questions or just trying to troll. I really cant tell anymore.
This is exhausting from the people that try to stir up drama around my company, its always the same people around it. If you cannot see that, i don't know what to tell you.
Degradation showed up in the Reta batch, after said degradation showed up i replaced the batch. What more do you want?
My question is if this is such a common filler why is it that Jano, who has done this for a long long time, never sees it but the guy who has been in business for 4 months acts like Jano is the outlier. It is obviously is not typical in the world of bootleg peptides, which is the world you’re in.
Not a Nexaph customer, no relation to him, but:
If we take him at his word that he is using it only in tesamorelin, and it is the same filler used by the name brand version, this seems like a good thing vs. using a filler that is more common for other peptides.
Do we not want to match the "proper" formula as best as we can?
I don't think either of us are in a position to tell if he's telling the truth about the reta. Did Jano specifically say that he was able to test for histidine in the reta sample and found it?
That is something you'll need to ask Jano about.
