MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Janoshik Analytical laboratory testing services
- Thread starter janoshik
- Start date
baxter0312
Member
16 oz , $16 postage
janoshik
Subscriber
Proper untracked envelope is ~2-3 USD.
baxter0312
Member
janoshik
Subscriber
Well, you still can fit 20 raw samples into that easily.
baxter0312
Member
Quite a few... the number is actually around 600 samples. the guy did ask what the maximum was lol
DB_636
Member
Today, I tried to mail samples to Jano via USPS and they immediately rejected my bubble mailer. The postal worker said that she is being told that they cannot accept shipments to that country which I thought was very odd. Having already paid for the tests I had to to go the expensive route and use FedEx. Just be careful trying to ship with USPS guys. It gave me a bad feeling.
clearheaded
Member
uh? I think they may of been confused. Czech Republic no? or maybe if its Belarus/russia I could see that, but even then doubtful. 100000% they ship to Czech . did they try and make a express ship label? or just with regular stamps/mail and said that? I could see perhaps there was no guarantee ship time for certain places.. but mail?
this is where USPS do not ship.. I could understand Ukraine or perhaps turkey for the time being... you can fill out a shipment online for usps to confirm.. or did u mean UPS? UPS of course prob ships to less places.
this is where USPS do not ship.. I could understand Ukraine or perhaps turkey for the time being... you can fill out a shipment online for usps to confirm.. or did u mean UPS? UPS of course prob ships to less places.
- Cuba (BIS)
- Iran (OFAC)
- North Korea (BIS)
- Sudan (OFAC)
- Syria (BIS)
Last edited:
DB_636
Member
I absolutely meant USPS. I had Janos address on the bubble mailer and within 20 seconds they refused it stating what I stated earlier. I didn't press it, so I picked up the package and left.
clearheaded
Member
I have a question for @janoshik. what standards are used for peptides other than hgh? I imagine you cannot run a blind "peptide" and determine accurately its quantity correct? as would need the specific standard depending on the peptide for accurate quantitative analysis? or is there 1 or 2 standards that can be used for vast majority of peptides?
just so folks understand they don't weigh the peptide(although possible if not in mannitol) simply add specific amount of water, take out tiny aliquot and then determine strength and extrapolate to the total volume used in reconstitution.
speaking of mannitol, what are your thoughts about "non mannitol" peptides.. I know certain ones if makes them more stable during lyophilization correct? also would help for more accurate dosing? if you familiar with production.. but my real concern would be with no mannitol or "filler" would this not make the peptide more susceptible to damage from shipping simply from being rolled and knocked around? or any data on if shaking loose peptides cause degradation? I imagine depends on how stable the peptide is, but logically to me, with mannitol seems like a better thing...perhaps the "non lyophilized" as some vendors state (obvious misnomer) when mean non mannitol. I am making some very large leaps here, but I imagine the reason u see this in "usa" or "canada" made is actually because they buy raw and it is more of a simple set up to dissolve and dose viles pre re lyophilization, as perhaps faster and of course would need far less volume of solvent when no mannitol is used... thats my guess at least, sorta doubt the investment needed to actually produce 100+ peptides at quantity is made by "grey area" usa/canada "labs", I could be wrong perhaps just takes 1 machine and can make 100s of grams in a run and can be easily handle production of many Dif peptides... anyway, sorry got on a rant there however VERY much appreciate your input and time! THANKS!
just so folks understand they don't weigh the peptide(although possible if not in mannitol) simply add specific amount of water, take out tiny aliquot and then determine strength and extrapolate to the total volume used in reconstitution.
speaking of mannitol, what are your thoughts about "non mannitol" peptides.. I know certain ones if makes them more stable during lyophilization correct? also would help for more accurate dosing? if you familiar with production.. but my real concern would be with no mannitol or "filler" would this not make the peptide more susceptible to damage from shipping simply from being rolled and knocked around? or any data on if shaking loose peptides cause degradation? I imagine depends on how stable the peptide is, but logically to me, with mannitol seems like a better thing...perhaps the "non lyophilized" as some vendors state (obvious misnomer) when mean non mannitol. I am making some very large leaps here, but I imagine the reason u see this in "usa" or "canada" made is actually because they buy raw and it is more of a simple set up to dissolve and dose viles pre re lyophilization, as perhaps faster and of course would need far less volume of solvent when no mannitol is used... thats my guess at least, sorta doubt the investment needed to actually produce 100+ peptides at quantity is made by "grey area" usa/canada "labs", I could be wrong perhaps just takes 1 machine and can make 100s of grams in a run and can be easily handle production of many Dif peptides... anyway, sorry got on a rant there however VERY much appreciate your input and time! THANKS!
Zebedee
Well-known Member
The postal worker might just of been stupid. I’m in the UK & back before Brexit, i I had an idiot at the post office refusing to accept a parcel destined for Greece because it didn’t have a CN22 customs declaration on it - these are not needed intra-EU & all post office branch staff should have known that.
janoshik
Subscriber
I feel like your USPS guy might have been retarded and the dozen USPS packages we've received in past two weeks agree with me.
janoshik
Subscriber
We make our own standards.
We even sell them to universities for research.
But you don't really need standards, but as we are high throughput business, we use them. For high purity samples AAA or qNMR is very suitable. But slower and not suitable for routine HT analyses.
Regarding the rest, physical stress is virtually a non factor, especially inside a vial. Mannitol isn't there to prevent movement, it's there to facilitate drying process afaik.
Cheers
DB_636
Member
Idk what the deal was but I wish it wouldn't have gone down that way. I'd much prefer to not have paid what FedEx was asking.
samuelclemens95
New Member
If I were to name a more obscure peptide, say MGF or FST344... are you willing to say what percentage of samples you receive are relatively pure? Are you allowed to say which vendors you've received samples from generally contain the described product? I understand batch variance etc... but It feels like quite a costly endeavor for me to purchase samples from numerous vendors, have them shipped, pay 300$ for each to be tested, just for a few data points when you are sitting on a much larger dataset. It's information I am definitely willing to pay good coin for.
AAS, GH, GH secretagogues, and even peptides like BPC/TB500 with high turnover have enough lab reports floating around. The market consensus is pretty good there. But something like follistatin, a long fragile AA that almost nobody buys... I am skeptical of companies able to sell it for 100-200$ per mg. Would hate to pay thousands just to realize it's all bunk, or mostly all bunk.
AAS, GH, GH secretagogues, and even peptides like BPC/TB500 with high turnover have enough lab reports floating around. The market consensus is pretty good there. But something like follistatin, a long fragile AA that almost nobody buys... I am skeptical of companies able to sell it for 100-200$ per mg. Would hate to pay thousands just to realize it's all bunk, or mostly all bunk.
janoshik
Subscriber
Well, I generally shy away from naming anybody in this business, as I don't want to give a hypothetical g2g.
But really, the more obscure the sample (be is aas or peptide or whatever) the more likely it is:
a) not what it's supposed to be at all ( flour or, funnily enough, diclofenac quite a few times)
b) switched for similar acting cheaper substitute ( eg clomid-toremifene )
c) terrible quality due to manufacture being low volume/low frequency, thus 'full of bugs' (eg brominated aas)
d) terrible quality due to degradation ( eg. follistatin that was made in one batch and has sales volume so low it's being sold half a decade later)
Mind that there is a massive bias for good reports to be online - bad ones don't get posted by the vendors and oft the clients can be bribed into not posting the bad ones either.
I guarantee you half the common peptides are dosed randomly / misidentified etc. For the really rare stuff like F344 I don't think 10% of the samples we tested were even close.
samuelclemens95
New Member
This is great info and I appreciate you sharing it. Are there certain vendors (not asking for names) that comprise the 10% or is it just wildly inconsistent for the reasons (c and d) you already mentioned?
Lastly... is MGF generally garbage as well or is it possible to get good stuff? And have you ever come across ACE031 or ACE083? Not sure if reference standards even exist as they are proprietary clinical molecules. Which always made me wonder how a manufacturer would even obtain the sequence. Just stuff I've wondered for a while now, never knew you had a thread on this board. Really cool
janoshik
Subscriber
Wildly inconsistent.
A reputable manufacturer can put up extremely rare and difficult to make unstable biosimilar in good quality one batch and then clusterfuck of degraded ecoli puke the next one. One of the reasons why I shy away from recommendations.
I have tested a lot of MGF/PEG MGF and god, off the top of my head I am not sure if even a single sample tested as it should have had.
You don't really need a standard, when there's nothing of any relevant molecular mass in the vial.
I have tested ACE031 and we hit a jackpot a couple of times IIRC. No standard available, but that's where the usual rounds of LCMS / MALDI and qNMR come around.
clearheaded
Member
specifically for peptides though so you can use 1 standard for many of them? except for hgh u use separate one iirc.
and for in-house standard, did you verify vs standard "standard" and is that verification done for correction over time or is it assumed to be fine? esp with degradation testing, if using a standard that also degrades (example hgh) would this not give accurate results as both are technically degrading? my experience is more with isotopes way back in the day so forgive any silly questions.
also a bit confused how you can get purity and quantity with no standard. particularly for peptides..
interesting no customer testing has shown random dosage or compound? other than odd outlier.. esp if 50% are random compounds/doses....talking peptides particularly here. I know histamine type reactions seem to pop up for alot of peptides any common random compounds that are used to "fake" peptides that may cause this? suspect LPS would only be an issue for recombinant/ecoli manufacturing correct?
looking at HPLC results for peptides u will see 97.5% for example and 2.2% will be of some other singular compound and 0.3% of something else...what is the most 'common' singular impurity in hgh or peptides. always sorta assumed was just some random amino left over.
as others have said would be great for harm reduction to know if any signals show up for certain peptides showing up as something Dif. just so people can be extra careful for those specific peptides. ie is semaglutide often popping for some random analog having same/similar agonist activity. or are some of these peptides close enough that can be tuff to know 100% without using longer retention time standards for example.
again, VERY much appreciate your time and input!
and for in-house standard, did you verify vs standard "standard" and is that verification done for correction over time or is it assumed to be fine? esp with degradation testing, if using a standard that also degrades (example hgh) would this not give accurate results as both are technically degrading? my experience is more with isotopes way back in the day so forgive any silly questions.
also a bit confused how you can get purity and quantity with no standard. particularly for peptides..
interesting no customer testing has shown random dosage or compound? other than odd outlier.. esp if 50% are random compounds/doses....talking peptides particularly here. I know histamine type reactions seem to pop up for alot of peptides any common random compounds that are used to "fake" peptides that may cause this? suspect LPS would only be an issue for recombinant/ecoli manufacturing correct?
looking at HPLC results for peptides u will see 97.5% for example and 2.2% will be of some other singular compound and 0.3% of something else...what is the most 'common' singular impurity in hgh or peptides. always sorta assumed was just some random amino left over.
as others have said would be great for harm reduction to know if any signals show up for certain peptides showing up as something Dif. just so people can be extra careful for those specific peptides. ie is semaglutide often popping for some random analog having same/similar agonist activity. or are some of these peptides close enough that can be tuff to know 100% without using longer retention time standards for example.
again, VERY much appreciate your time and input!
Last edited:
clearheaded
Member
very good to know MGF is a tuff one to actually get! of course interested in others! thanks!
Similar threads
- Sticky
