Dammit *cancels BuildMySpace.com order*

Josh’s 10 reported results span 108.6–138.6% of label claim. A one-vial result could have made this order look very different, depending on which vial was picked.

Send 100 vials of RT to: TrustPointe Analytics 1743 142nd Ave Suite 4 Dorr, MI 49323 Your messages are closed, so just send me the tracking number and we’ll issue a sample ID 👍🏻

@RegenRsrch has agreed to be put through the @TrustPointe wringer Results soon!

Certainly an option. I think long-term, consumers will expect not to have to be burdened with the costs of poor quality

Since my rando X contact for RT10s didn’t work out Any peptide vendors on here want to send me 100 vials and get put through the @TrustPointe ringer? Will be public, so you’ll have to be confident

I’ll be here at 55 I grew up poor (food stamps, Medicaid), so I’ll take it But I’ll make damn sure my sons hit this well before 55

The landed cost on the RT10s I got from China was $8/vial. If you 4x it for quality improvements, that’s $32/vial landed. Add $2/vial testing cost and 50% margin = $51 per vial retail or $5.10/mg. You’re right; there would still be a market for people that cannot afford it or just don’t care that much. But is still a lot more affordable than $400/month for 4mg from Novo

You stop using that lab and find one that gives you the results you want Ask me how I know 😆

I love the sentiment, and certainly the drive to remain competitive will mean eating some of tge cost But I’m imagining a scenario where the increased quality requirements drive manufacturing process improvements that 2-4x the cost of the vial before any testing is done

In pharma they use inline vial washing machines like this youtu.be/HV7h-uL-UzI?is=4V6U… I know they also make pre-washed vials.

Everyone wants cheap until they find out they are injecting glass 😆

It won’t just be the testing cost; the cost to manufacture will go up as well. Every failing test result has a bad process behind it. I think the vendors investing in quality processes now will reap the benefit of being ready as quality requirements increase.

When we start running USP <788> on peptide vials, I fully expect to find high levels of glass and rubber particulates from unwashed vials. Peptide prices will rise as people learn the risks and demand testing. Paying $10 more per vial for clean product? Welcome trade.

My RT10 buy from a rando on X is not going well. I know you are all shocked 😱 More bad news to come!

This makes sense from a process perspective. I would assume a 10mg vial is at the lower end of the dispensing capacity of equipment, so there would be more variation That being said, that doesn’t mean we need to accept it Studies like this along with process improvements can drive out variation and improve output consistency. It just takes a manufacturer that is willing to invest in quality

I’m not a huge fan of hard rules because the statistical decision making power shifts with the batch size, and I like to stick to standards USP <905> is a standard, it is lower power because it assumes FDA-level process validation, and it doesn’t account for batch size where representative sampling breaks down. But it does use variable data to make predictions about batch quality and it’s 10 per batch. Nobody will want to do ANSI Z1.4 / ISO 2859 by attributes standards; requires far too mamy samples (hundreds). Attribute data has way less power than variable data, so the sample requirements are higher. If you have really small batch sizes, AQL General Level II 1% might be financially feasible. That leaves you with variable data and process capability indices (Cp/Cpk), which still require at least 20-30 samples; but is still a recognized standard. Beyond that, you have the work of Dr. Wayne Taylor, who was the FDA expert witness on statistical sampling. His improvement combined variable data process capability and AQL/defect rates to allow smaller sample sizes (as small as 6). His sampling plan limits just get tighter the smaller the sample size to account for the decrease the statistical power. If I was running a peptide factory, I’d use a combination of process capability controls and Dr. Taylors work for lot release.

Glad to see you and I share autistic levels of overthinking

This post is ragebait

You could, but > two of those vials I tested would be out of spec > 22.9% of vials would be below 11.7mg or above 14.3mg > 0.3% would be below 10.6mg or above 15.6mg