ProblemChild
New member
Found this article informative as I start my peptide learning. I hope it is helpful for the other newbies.
Multi-lab COA comparison
- Thread starter ProblemChild
- Start date
Grogu
New member
no article attached or linked. Maybe it's the "No Source Discussion" thingy...?
ProblemChild
New member
Bummer. Maybe I'm too much of a newbie still. I found it on peptide critic. The article appears when you hover over the text. Maybe one of the more experienced users will be kind enough to post it.
SeaGypsy
New member
This was an interesting read this morning. Thank you for sharing this 
SeaGypsy
New member
It worked for me, just click the blue "this article" in the first line
Grogu
New member
Thanks! I didn't see the blue link.... maybe glp-1s are making me color blind? They have affected my vision.
Grogu
New member
ProblemChild said:
Bummer. Maybe I'm too much of a newbie still. I found it on peptide critic. The article appears when you hover over the text. Maybe one of the more experienced users will be kind enough to post it.
Click to expand...
No, you did it correctly, I missed the blue text with the link.... my eyesight has gotten worse since starting glp-1s, but that's just an excuse....
The article would have been even more interesting if they inlcuded Krause (Finndicks perferred lab). They probably would have said that their was no reta in the vial or 3mg.
BNLFL
New member
I missed the blue as well.
SeaGypsy
New member
I'm hoping they improve mine, blind as a bat
ProblemChild
New member
I bolded the text. Hopefully that will help.
CNCCurrency
New member
He sends newsletters out to subscribers regularly, well probably Randy the rat does.
BNLFL
New member
I like Randy, but he doesn't move or say much.
FLglpguy
New member
Thanks for sharing this! Very good info to allow us to understand how to interpret the COA's we all ask for.
Flash-BCR
New member
Very interesting read... 
eidos
New member
They are correct on a few points, such as the need for calibration and variations in vial filling within the same kit. But they completely miss the point when it comes to what makes an honest analysis of the results, and they even fall for the false precision of the results.
Here are some explanations (this is high school-level math and how to apply it in biochemistry).
There are three main points:
1. Systematic error in the analysis machine: this is why calibration is necessary.
2. Uncertainty: every analytical system experiences “natural” variations in its results. Normally, a plus or minus value is reported (none of the labs do this).
3. Reproducibility: multiple runs are performed using the same source, and an average and standard deviation (sigma) are calculated. None of the labs mention this.
The results will also depend on the instrument brand, its generation, the type of solvent used for elution, the type of column, and the peptide concentration: the lower the concentration, the more the peptide, with its lipophilic chain, will remain adsorbed in the tubing and column (which is why columns are washed or discarded between runs).
If you visit a reference site like Merck-Sigma, you’ll see aGLP-1 peptides listed with purities of 95% or 97%. Take a look at their prices, just for a good laugh.
The COAs currently in circulation should more honestly state a purity of 99%, not 99.834 or 99.971, which is just smoke and mirrors. HPLC-UV analyses have a precision of between 0.1 and 0.5, depending on the settings and the number of runs.
At least Peter Magic was honest enough to say he was presenting the results that way for marketing reasons. He has a business to run, 40 employees, and equipment investments. With 1,000 tests a day all year round, I’d be surprised if they ran more than one run unless someone asked for it (and paid for it).
Based on my modest knowledge of production management in the pharmaceutical industry, I gather from the available information that there are fewer than ten supplier factories in China. No batch numbers ever appear, only SKUs, to prevent easy tracking. What seems more and more obvious to me is that only one or two batches of each peptide are produced each year. That’s why sellers provide COAs from 2025. Just think how many kits you can produce with 10 or 20 kg.
It is very likely that the same batch is tested dozens or even hundreds of times. This isn’t obvious because of the false precision of 4 or 5 digits instead of 2 significant figures. Testing labs won’t tell you this: it’s just marketing.
At 99%, manufacturers are complying with good manufacturing practices. Their dope is good. There were very few issues with sterility or endotoxins across all batches. These issues also occur in the official drug chains, with batches being recalled every day.
The only real problem is a commercial one, unrelated to production: running into crooks who only send mannitol without the peptide. Fortunately, we have buyer reviews here to help avoid this issue.
Here are some explanations (this is high school-level math and how to apply it in biochemistry).
There are three main points:
1. Systematic error in the analysis machine: this is why calibration is necessary.
2. Uncertainty: every analytical system experiences “natural” variations in its results. Normally, a plus or minus value is reported (none of the labs do this).
3. Reproducibility: multiple runs are performed using the same source, and an average and standard deviation (sigma) are calculated. None of the labs mention this.
The results will also depend on the instrument brand, its generation, the type of solvent used for elution, the type of column, and the peptide concentration: the lower the concentration, the more the peptide, with its lipophilic chain, will remain adsorbed in the tubing and column (which is why columns are washed or discarded between runs).
If you visit a reference site like Merck-Sigma, you’ll see aGLP-1 peptides listed with purities of 95% or 97%. Take a look at their prices, just for a good laugh.
The COAs currently in circulation should more honestly state a purity of 99%, not 99.834 or 99.971, which is just smoke and mirrors. HPLC-UV analyses have a precision of between 0.1 and 0.5, depending on the settings and the number of runs.
At least Peter Magic was honest enough to say he was presenting the results that way for marketing reasons. He has a business to run, 40 employees, and equipment investments. With 1,000 tests a day all year round, I’d be surprised if they ran more than one run unless someone asked for it (and paid for it).
Based on my modest knowledge of production management in the pharmaceutical industry, I gather from the available information that there are fewer than ten supplier factories in China. No batch numbers ever appear, only SKUs, to prevent easy tracking. What seems more and more obvious to me is that only one or two batches of each peptide are produced each year. That’s why sellers provide COAs from 2025. Just think how many kits you can produce with 10 or 20 kg.
It is very likely that the same batch is tested dozens or even hundreds of times. This isn’t obvious because of the false precision of 4 or 5 digits instead of 2 significant figures. Testing labs won’t tell you this: it’s just marketing.
At 99%, manufacturers are complying with good manufacturing practices. Their dope is good. There were very few issues with sterility or endotoxins across all batches. These issues also occur in the official drug chains, with batches being recalled every day.
The only real problem is a commercial one, unrelated to production: running into crooks who only send mannitol without the peptide. Fortunately, we have buyer reviews here to help avoid this issue.
ProblemChild
New member
Here's a Reddit link that summarizes one of the Janoshik YT interviews.
TLDR:
Janoshik started almost by accident, but became one of the main peptide testing labs. Peter says peptides are now 70–80% of their business, they test around 100 peptide samples a day, and the biggest takeaway is: blind/community testing matters way more than trusting vendor COAs.
TLDR:
Janoshik started almost by accident, but became one of the main peptide testing labs. Peter says peptides are now 70–80% of their business, they test around 100 peptide samples a day, and the biggest takeaway is: blind/community testing matters way more than trusting vendor COAs.