Why are we all hung up on purity?

[raw_oyster_eater]

Why do i care if its 99% or 95% with 5% inert stuff?

I would be concerned about contamination but they're not testing for contaminants. There are 1000s of things that could be harmful, but you'd have to be isolating on each one in the test.

Maybe i'm full of shit?

 

[Sheldor]

For injection medications, purity is crucial:

• Higher purity (99% vs. 95%) means more active ingredient.
• Fewer impurities reduce the risk of side effects.
• Allows for more accurate and effective dosing.
• Fewer impurities lead to better chemical stability.
• Higher purity meets stricter standards.

In short: 99% purity is safer and more effective than 95%.

 

[Revo39564]

Why do i care if its 99% or 95% with 5% inert stuff?

I would be concerned about contamination but they're not testing for contaminants. There are 1000s of things that could be harmful, but you'd have to be isolating on each one in the test.

Maybe i'm full of shit?

I don’t care about it. I just want to know the mg in the vial and if the amino acid sequence matches tirzepatide…

 

[GLP69]

It's at least partially about keeping vendors honest

 

[dionysos]

We are "hung up" on Purity because Virtue is its own reward, Excellence is an aspiration worth having, and peptide vendors are clearly able to do it at no increase in costs when they choose to execute their process properly.

Do you think there would be any meaningful progress if we ignored the quality and rewarded sloppiness by purchasing whatever happened to roll out of an unmonitored Chinese lyophilizer?

That was a rhetorical question - we'd be injecting the pharma equivalent of a pre-reunification communist TRABANT auto!

 

[MarisWinter]

We are "hung up" on Purity because Virtue is its own reward, excellence is an aspiration worth having, and peptide vendors are clearly able to do it at no increase in costs when they choose to execute their process properly.

Do you think there would be any meaningful progress if we ignored the quality and rewarded sloppiness by purchasing whatever happened to roll out of an unmonitored Chinese lyophilizer?

That was a rhetorical question - we'd be injecting the pharma equivalent of a pre-reunification communist TRABANT auto!
View attachment 1378

Now THAT was hilarious and brilliant!

 

[dionysos]

Now THAT was hilarious and brilliant!

Thank you Ladies and Germs! I'm here all week...

 

[Cndmk]

There are number of things I would add to the "obsessed with purity" argument.

Not to reveal much about myself, but I have a close family member who works in a very scientific aspect of this medical field, and I am able to ask this person a fair number of questions that I think people may not know:

- I have been told that there have been a number of impurities that have been identified in the 3-5% range that can (and have) caused very detrimental effects within different materials produced. Obviously this is material dependent, but it still speaks to "what is a safe purity" as kind of a mixed bag. I personally would not inject into anything a 95% purity of anything, that screams irresponsible to my personal risk profile.

- My personal profession involves understanding the cost/benefit curve for many aspects. Understanding that going from 99.9X% purity to 99.99% purity may cost 10X of the investment than to go from 99.X% to 99.9%, asymptotic curves are real in quality. As @dionysos stated, we essentially have proven through independent testing that vendors are capable of producing 99.X% product without any measurable impact on cost if proper procedures are followed, so why accept less at this point?

If for some reason, there were a manufacturing issue where the maximum % purity would only be like 95% (as in there was a yield issue or some kind of built in defective design), then hopefully we would be able to identify the impurity, and gauge it's percentage in the overall design of the product, maybe then we would be "ok" with a 95.X% purity of ideal product, and 4.X% of identified, but non-ideal byproduct.

 

[raw_oyster_eater]

OK,

I guess I should be thanking the anal retentive people instead of complaining about them!

 

[Revo39564]

There are number of things I would add to the "obsessed with purity" argument.

Not to reveal much about myself, but I have a close family member who works in a very scientific aspect of this medical field, and I am able to ask this person a fair number of questions that I think people may not know:

- I have been told that there have been a number of impurities that have been identified in the 3-5% range that can (and have) caused very detrimental effects within different materials produced. Obviously this is material dependent, but it still speaks to "what is a safe purity" as kind of a mixed bag. I personally would not inject into anything a 95% purity of anything, that screams irresponsible to my personal risk profile.

- My personal profession involves understanding the cost/benefit curve for many aspects. Understanding that going from 99.9X% purity to 99.99% purity may cost 10X of the investment than to go from 99.X% to 99.9%, asymptotic curves are real in quality. As @dionysos stated, we essentially have proven through independent testing that vendors are capable of producing 99.X% product without any measurable impact on cost if proper procedures are followed, so why accept less at this point?

If for some reason, there were a manufacturing issue where the maximum % purity would only be like 95% (as in there was a yield issue or some kind of built in defective design), then hopefully we would be able to identify the impurity, and gauge it's percentage in the overall design of the product, maybe then we would be "ok" with a 95.X% purity of ideal product, and 4.X% of identified, but non-ideal byproduct

There are number of things I would add to the "obsessed with purity" argument.

Not to reveal much about myself, but I have a close family member who works in a very scientific aspect of this medical field, and I am able to ask this person a fair number of questions that I think people may not know:

- I have been told that there have been a number of impurities that have been identified in the 3-5% range that can (and have) caused very detrimental effects within different materials produced. Obviously this is material dependent, but it still speaks to "what is a safe purity" as kind of a mixed bag. I personally would not inject into anything a 95% purity of anything, that screams irresponsible to my personal risk profile.

- My personal profession involves understanding the cost/benefit curve for many aspects. Understanding that going from 99.9X% purity to 99.99% purity may cost 10X of the investment than to go from 99.X% to 99.9%, asymptotic curves are real in quality. As @dionysos stated, we essentially have proven through independent testing that vendors are capable of producing 99.X% product without any measurable impact on cost if proper procedures are followed, so why accept less at this point?

If for some reason, there were a manufacturing issue where the maximum % purity would only be like 95% (as in there was a yield issue or some kind of built in defective design), then hopefully we would be able to identify the impurity, and gauge it's percentage in the overall design of the product, maybe then we would be "ok" with a 95.X% purity of ideal product, and 4.X% of identified, but non-ideal byprodu

There are number of things I would add to the "obsessed with purity" argument.

Not to reveal much about myself, but I have a close family member who works in a very scientific aspect of this medical field, and I am able to ask this person a fair number of questions that I think people may not know:

- I have been told that there have been a number of impurities that have been identified in the 3-5% range that can (and have) caused very detrimental effects within different materials produced. Obviously this is material dependent, but it still speaks to "what is a safe purity" as kind of a mixed bag. I personally would not inject into anything a 95% purity of anything, that screams irresponsible to my personal risk profile.

- My personal profession involves understanding the cost/benefit curve for many aspects. Understanding that going from 99.9X% purity to 99.99% purity may cost 10X of the investment than to go from 99.X% to 99.9%, asymptotic curves are real in quality. As @dionysos stated, we essentially have proven through independent testing that vendors are capable of producing 99.X% product without any measurable impact on cost if proper procedures are followed, so why accept less at this point?

If for some reason, there were a manufacturing issue where the maximum % purity would only be like 95% (as in there was a yield issue or some kind of built in defective design), then hopefully we would be able to identify the impurity, and gauge it's percentage in the overall design of the product, maybe then we would be "ok" with a 95.X% purity of ideal product, and 4.X% of identified, but non-

There is plenty of room for contamination in the final processing when they add all the binders/ salts …. If it if 10 mg 99 percent pure tirz with 30 mg of binder that is a lot of room for contamination .

 

[Broken Chef]

The Jano Q&A PDF mentioned that the "impurities" are just inactive (degraded) peptide, rather than things like lead, mercury, etc.

The QSC tests that came out at low(er) purity speaks to this. They weren't processed right, causing rapid degradation, therefore lower purity, with the remainder being unharmful degraded peptide.

But yeah.. who wouldn't want 99.99% purity, regardless of what it is! This was one of the big reasons I bought those 2 Sema10 kits from GYC .. 10.98mg and 99.995% purity.. supposedly.

 

[Revo39564]

The Jano Q&A PDF mentioned that the "impurities" are just inactive (degraded) peptide, rather than things like lead, mercury, etc.

The QSC tests that came out at low(er) purity speaks to this. They weren't processed right, causing rapid degradation, therefore lower purity, with the remainder being unharmful degraded peptide.

But yeah.. who wouldn't want 99.99% purity, regardless of what it is! This was one of the big reasons I bought those 2 Sema10 kits from GYC .. 10.98mg and 99.995% purity.. supposedly.

Yeah I know there isn’t any heavy metals used in the manufacturing of tirzepatide … low risk for bacterial contamination in the Chinese method used because it is filtered . Most tirzepatide should be 99 percent pure out of the chemical plant ….after that is where the contamination risk occur.

 

[Broken Chef]

Yeah I know there isn’t any heavy metals used in the manufacturing of tirzepatide … low risk for bacterial contamination in the Chinese method used because it is filtered . Most tirzepatide should be 99 percent pure out of the chemical plant ….after that is where the contamination risk occur.

Makes sense. I wish they wouldn't add filler. I'd be totally fine with just a few grains in the vial. Probably difficult to measure such a small amount.

 

[Revo39564]

Makes sense. I wish they wouldn't add filler. I'd be totally fine with just a few grains in the vial. Probably difficult to measure such a small amount.

Me too . I have bought once like that raw in 10 mg vials. But it was about the same price as finished ……. Less hands in it probably better

 

[Revo39564]

P

Me too . I have bought once like that raw in 10 mg vials. But it was about the same price as finished ……. Less hands in it probably better

raw absorbs water easier too I think

 

[dionysos]

Makes sense. I wish they wouldn't add filler. I'd be totally fine with just a few grains in the vial. Probably difficult to measure such a small amount.

Yeah, the mallitol is just a nuisance.

 

[iamedbile]

Here is an excellent article on peptide purity written by the business partner of the founder of peptidetest.com:

On Peptide Purity | TrustPointe Analytics LLC

Updated: 19-Jul-2024 Council On Harm Reduction - Peptide Safety Basics The Council on Harm Reduction (CoHR) for peptides

trustpointeanalytics.com

It goes into detail about what these purity numbers mean, and what they do not mean.

Specifically, a 99.575% purity result does *not* mean that 99.575% of the contents of the vial is the claimed substance, and only 0.425% is anything else.

All it means (to oversimplify a bit) is that only 0.425% of the contents is similar to *but not quite* the claimed substance.

The purity process that is being used (HPLC) does not detect substances that are radically different from the claimed substance. For instance, if a vial contained 20mg of perfectly pure tirzepatide and 10mg of arsenic, the HPLC purity test would report it as 100% pure because arsenic is not similar to tirzepatide. The equipment cannot be set to look for everything.

In addition to not detecting significantly different substances the purity score also says nothing about sterility.

Since a 30mg tirzepatide vial could be half poison and biologically contaminated and still get a 99.5% purity reading the question “why do we care about this purity number” is an excellent question.

My answer is simple: We do not have a better test.

I use purity as a proxy, hoping that a lab that does the work to produce a high quality peptide will also do the work to produce a sterile and uncontaminated product.

 

[raw_oyster_eater]

Here is an excellent article on peptide purity written by the business partner of the founder of peptidetest.com:

On Peptide Purity | TrustPointe Analytics LLC

Updated: 19-Jul-2024 Council On Harm Reduction - Peptide Safety Basics The Council on Harm Reduction (CoHR) for peptides

trustpointeanalytics.com

It goes into detail about what these purity numbers mean, and what they do not mean.

Specifically, a 99.575% purity result does *not* mean that 99.575% of the contents of the vial is the claimed substance, and only 0.425% is anything else.

All it means (to oversimplify a bit) is that only 0.425% of the contents is similar to *but not quite* the claimed substance.

The purity process that is being used (HPLC) does not detect substances that are radically different from the claimed substance. For instance, if a vial contained 20mg of perfectly pure tirzepatide and 10mg of arsenic, the HPLC purity test would report it as 100% pure because arsenic is not similar to tirzepatide. The equipment cannot be set to look for everything.

In addition to not detecting significantly different substances the purity score also says nothing about sterility.

Since a 30mg tirzepatide vial could be half poison and biologically contaminated and still get a 99.5% purity reading the question “why do we care about this purity number” is an excellent question.

My answer is simple: We do not have a better test.

I use purity a proxy, hoping that a lab that does the work to produce a high quality peptide will also do the work to produce a sterile and uncontaminated product.

OK this is exactly what i was trying to convey in post #1. It's like a false sense of security. That's why i won't be wasting any of my product or money on tests.

What i am doing, is using it as soon as i get it as a real-world test and let everyone know if anything is off. The best kind of test.

 

[Revo39564]

Here is an excellent article on peptide purity written by the business partner of the founder of peptidetest.com:

On Peptide Purity | TrustPointe Analytics LLC

Updated: 19-Jul-2024 Council On Harm Reduction - Peptide Safety Basics The Council on Harm Reduction (CoHR) for peptides

trustpointeanalytics.com

It goes into detail about what these purity numbers mean, and what they do not mean.

Specifically, a 99.575% purity result does *not* mean that 99.575% of the contents of the vial is the claimed substance, and only 0.425% is anything else.

All it means (to oversimplify a bit) is that only 0.425% of the contents is similar to *but not quite* the claimed substance.

The purity process that is being used (HPLC) does not detect substances that are radically different from the claimed substance. For instance, if a vial contained 20mg of perfectly pure tirzepatide and 10mg of arsenic, the HPLC purity test would report it as 100% pure because arsenic is not similar to tirzepatide. The equipment cannot be set to look for everything.

In addition to not detecting significantly different substances the purity score also says nothing about sterility.

Since a 30mg tirzepatide vial could be half poison and biologically contaminated and still get a 99.5% purity reading the question “why do we care about this purity number” is an excellent question.

My answer is simple: We do not have a better test.

I use purity as a proxy, hoping that a lab that does the work to produce a high quality peptide will also do the work to produce a sterile and uncontaminated product.

I pay a college to test the amino acid sequence and the total mg of tirzepatide…. $108… I don’t care about it being 99 percent … that would be a more expensive test anyway.

 

[iamedbile]

OK this is exactly what i was trying to convey in post #1. It's like a false sense of security. That's why i won't be wasting any of my product or money on tests.

What i am doing, is using it as soon as i get it as a real-world test and let everyone know if anything is off. The best kind of test.

Up to you. I don’t personally feel that the best response to not having all the information is to choose to have even less information. But given the costs involved it is certainly a judgment call.