Baby bottle washers to sterilize?

[Cereal masturbator]

All of this useless typing you keep doing, you could have provided an answer to the question. i see now, you just rather troll. Probably about the only thing you have going for yourself. I'll leave you to it.

First reply to you was an answer. He said no

 

[OldmemberNewcuenta]

The problem is you don't know if that machine is working up to spec, or what contaminants are present that could be redeposited onto whatever you're trying make sterile, like microscopic bits of food.

If you're only brewing for yourself get one of the cheap (and they are very cheap) autoclaves on Amazon and fill presterilized ready to use vials.

The machine is brand new never used. But as some have stated, it likely wouldn't work. I'll do as you mentioned and just grab and a proper autoclave.

 

[Ghoul]

The machine is brand new never used. But as some have stated, it likely wouldn't work. I'll do as you mentioned and just grab and a proper autoclave.

Good job trying to keep things aseptic, and not relying on final sterile filtration do all the heavy lifting. Sterile is one thing, but shit still passes through .22um and contributes to "bioburden" in injectables, which is best kept to minimum to keep longer term risks lower.

 

[OldmemberNewcuenta]

Good job trying to keep things aseptic, and not relying on final sterile filtration do all the heavy lifting. Sterile is one thing, but shit still passes through .22um and contributes to "bioburden" in injectables, which is best kept to minimum to keep longer term risks lower.

Yes, well I have done at least a little reading lol. I'm a clean guy by nature. I do appreciate all of those who did chime in with actual input on the harm reduction board. Especially given this is the brew subforum. Probably best to get things as correct as possible at this point.

blessings bro

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

This is a harm reduction board you malevolent asshole.

@Spaceman Spiff has repeatedly said anyone who doesn't test their raws before brewing, like you, is an idiot. I'm sure he still feels that way, right Spiff? Narta brews without testing raws, a genuinely high risk behavior I'm sure you don't condone.

And while you bleat on about sterility of injectables requiring a higher standard, which is true, you stand by guys like Spiff and Alex who claim the high rate of failed sterility tests for peptides doesn't matter, sterile filtering those is "bubble boy nonsense", because there aren't reports of hospitalization, a great way to measure safety.

Where is your testing?

 

[Ghoul]

Yes, well I have done at least a little reading lol. I'm a clean guy by nature. I do appreciate all of those who did chime in with actual input on the harm reduction board. Especially given this is the brew subforum. Probably best to get things as correct as possible at this point.

blessings bro

One thing you'll run across here is are various perverted interpretations of "harm reduction".

One is the ridiculous gate keeping some practice, unwilling to share information to "teach you a lesson", as if they didn't benefit from someone else's effort who freely shared what they knew.

The other is that it can be difficult to discuss things that go further to reduce potential risks than someone else feels is necessary without them responding like you're insulting them, especially if it's novel and disrupts the status quo. We've all done things we'd have done differently based on what we know now.

.45um filtration was considered fine for decades, and for the most part, didn't lead to a lot of serious acute infections, but standards improved, and .22um reduced the risk further,

 

[OldmemberNewcuenta]

One thing you'll run across here is are various perverted interpretations of "harm reduction".

One is the ridiculous gate keeping some practice, unwilling to share information to "teach you a lesson", as if they didn't benefit from someone else's effort who freely shared what they knew.

The other is that it can be difficult to discuss things that go further to reduce potential risks than someone else feels is necessary without them responding like you're insulting them, especially if it's novel and disrupts the status quo. We've all done things we'd have done differently based on what we know now.

.45um filtration was considered fine for decades, and for the most part, didn't lead to a lot of serious acute infections, but standards improved, and .22um reduced the risk further,

I completely understand all sides. I try to take it into account as well and not jump off at the first slight. But i dont understadn those who act as though they wish not to be bothered helping, but will carry on offering many comments just to try and minimize another individual. At that point it's simply feeding their own non-existent self worth not looking to be beneficial to anyone but themselves.

And you are entirely correct about those not looking to add anything valuable to the convo, forgetting at one point their questions were foolish to those who they asked them to.

Hopefully things continue to grow and procedures can get refined for the benefit of all, but how much time and effort is wasted if the information that can be shared, isn't

 

[TheScholarOfBrew]

One thing you'll run across here is are various perverted interpretations of "harm reduction".

One is the ridiculous gate keeping some practice, unwilling to share information to "teach you a lesson", as if they didn't benefit from someone else's effort who freely shared what they knew.

The other is that it can be difficult to discuss things that go further to reduce potential risks than someone else feels is necessary without them responding like you're insulting them, especially if it's novel and disrupts the status quo. We've all done things we'd have done differently based on what we know now.

.45um filtration was considered fine for decades, and for the most part, didn't lead to a lot of serious acute infections, but standards improved, and .22um reduced the risk further,

I want to up my game on safety I was only filtering now I wonder if terminal cooking could get rid of those endo toxins

 

[narta]

I would use a baby bottle sterilizer only for caps and stoppers after a nice iso bath you could pass it in a baby bottle sterilizer
What do you think @narta it can't hurt?

Vials nope.

Why not the autoclave for the stoppers? If it can come into contact with the oil it needs to be sterilized the same

 

[narta]

@Spaceman Spiff has repeatedly said anyone who doesn't test their raws before brewing, like you, is an idiot. I'm sure he still feels that way, right Spiff? Narta brews without testing raws, a genuinely high risk behavior I'm sure you don't condone.

What makes you think I don't test my raws? Or am I inder any contractual obligations to make my testing public? I am not compensated for my testing so I have no obligation to post any of it.

And while you bleat on about sterility of injectables requiring a higher standard, which is true, you stand by guys like Spiff and Alex who claim the high rate of failed sterility tests for peptides doesn't matter, sterile filtering those is "bubble boy nonsense", because there aren't reports of hospitalization, a great way to measure safety.

Can you point me to this A"high rate of failed sterility testing" you mention?

Good job trying to keep things aseptic, and not relying on final sterile filtration do all the heavy lifting. Sterile is one thing, but shit still passes through .22um and contributes to "bioburden" in injectables, which is best kept to minimum to keep longer term risks lower.

Oh you are home brewing expert now...

This is a harm reduction board you malevolent asshole.

This is correct.

You are the harm.

We are doing the reduction, you malevolent untrained piece of lard.

LARP harder.

 

[narta]

I want to up my game on safety I was only filtering now I wonder if terminal cooking could get rid of those endo toxins

If you want to up your game, sterilize your raws, use RTF vials etc.

There is adequate, there is proper and there is anal. We all start at anal out of fear and settle on proper. Some move to adequate when profit comes into play

 

[TheScholarOfBrew]

If you want to up your game, sterilize your raws, use RTF vials etc.

There is adequate, there is proper and there is anal. We all start at anal out of fear and settle on proper. Some move to adequate when profit comes into play

Really a way to sterilize the raws?

 

[narta]

Really a way to sterilize the raws?

UV sterilization

 

[Sampei]

It's not gatekeeping per se, it's the lack of basic effort that gets me with these questions.

Injecting something in your body is dangerous a priori. If you want to homebrew it you need to do proper research, not 10' Google search, days and weeks of reading and comprehending what you are about to start. Understanding the basics BY YOURSELF adds a layer of proper precautions by itself and lessens the points that may need clarification in the future.

Give a man a fish, he will be fed for a day. Teach him how to fish, he will never starve.

Knowledge is not given for free, it requires effort and time. So one needs to dedicate the time needed to learn how to properly homebrew. If he simply relies on others to do the legwork for him he should either compensate them for their time or be ready to face the consequences of wrong answers

Like srsly give this man....I don't know. You just broke my heart.
I mean it in a good way

 

[Sampei]

Why not the autoclave for the stoppers? If it can come into contact with the oil it needs to be sterilized the same

The autoclave is 100% the only real way to do it but as we accept to "sanitize" the stopper into iso bath if we don't have an autoclave (as many here don't) a bottle sterilizer used only for this purpose could be an added step better than just iso bath? I'm genuinely asking.

My way at the moment is:
heat sterilization for vials
Stopper and caps gets sanitize in iso bath washed in distilled water and dried in the oven (used only for this matter) at a temperature that is not enough for sterilization (as that would melt both the caps and stoppers) but enough to dry them.

I'm 100% aware it's not the same as autoclaving them but it has worked for many of us for a long time, am I wrong?

 

[AlexDavis43]

Can you point me to this A"high rate of failed sterility testing" you mention?

There seems to be an arbitrary threshold for what constitutes a failed sterility test. Jano said it happens more frequently with peptides, but with peptides that we use all the time (?)

I don't know how the threshold was established, but it is clearly below when something bad happens. Unless you're an actual bubble boy who shouldn't be fucking around with any of this shit anyway.

 

[Sampei]

There seems to be an arbitrary threshold for what constitutes a failed sterility test. Jano said it happens more frequently with peptides, but with peptides that we use all the time (?)

I don't know how the threshold was established, but it is clearly below when something bad happens. Unless you're an actual bubble boy who shouldn't be fucking around with any of this shit anyway.

The thing is... You inject peptide subq, immune system is able to handle that easily because we are talking of contamination of sterility that are very particular even to determine, one should read on the sterility test and how it is provided etc to understand better what it means when it fails or not.

Plus it has been seen that test of different vials from the same batch gave different sterility results lol

Would it be better to filter peptides? Probably yes... But have we ever seen anyone getting an abscess from a peptide injection? Nope.

So it's really not a black and white situation.

Sterility on peptides is an issue not for the safety of the person imho but mostly for degradation of the peptide itself.

 

[OldmemberNewcuenta]

Im glad that this thread has detoured to get on track and become an exchange of information. Many thanks to those who added their input

 

[narta]

The thing is... You inject peptide subq, immune system is able to handle that easily because we are talking of contamination of sterility that are very particular even to determine, one should read on the sterility test and how it is provided etc to understand better what it means when it fails or not.

Plus it has been seen that test of different vials from the same batch gave different sterility results lol

Would it be better to filter peptides? Probably yes... But have we ever seen anyone getting an abscess from a peptide injection? Nope.

So it's really not a black and white situation.

Sterility on peptides is an issue not for the safety of the person imho but mostly for degradation of the peptide itself.

But but but @Ghoul says its aggregated unsterile shit, so you should boil it with oxygen peroxide in an autoclave and then filter it with PES .22μm filter into a pharma grade sterile vial before drawing it with a filtered needle to inject it in your eyelid.

 

[narta]

The autoclave is 100% the only real way to do it but as we accept to "sanitize" the stopper into iso bath if we don't have an autoclave (as many here don't) a bottle sterilizer used only for this purpose could be an added step better than just iso bath? I'm genuinely asking.

My way at the moment is:
heat sterilization for vials
Stopper and caps gets sanitize in iso bath washed in distilled water and dried in the oven (used only for this matter) at a temperature that is not enough for sterilization (as that would melt both the caps and stoppers) but enough to dry them.

I'm 100% aware it's not the same as autoclaving them but it has worked for many of us for a long time, am I wrong?

A quality baby bottle sterilizer costs about the same as an InstaPot. The latter can act as a homebrewers autoclave.