Tesamorelin testing shows 70% purity and 50% fills

[Ghoul]

https://www.theratech.com/news-releases/news-release-details/theratechnologies-receives-fda-approval-egrifta-wrtm-tesamorelin

The liquid volume of the injection was also cut in half. This is because the anti-aggregation excipient hydroxypropyl betadex (a form of cyclodextrin) not only extends the time Tesa can be reconstituted without aggregating, it also prevents the aggregation that occurs when peptide concentrations are too high.

"The old formulation contains histidine, mannitol, polysorbate 20 and sucrose as excipients, whereas the “super-originator” product comprises hydrochloric acid, hydroxypropyl betadex (HPBCD), mannitol and sodium hydroxide"

"The new formulation, EGRIFTA WR, is set to replace EGRIFTA SV®, well exemplifying how a cyclodextrin can enhance the life-cycle of a valuable active pharmaceutical ingredient."

Cyclodextrin News

Cyclodextrin-based super-generics represent enhanced versions of reformulated drug products, offering improved performance and patient outcomes usually developed/marketed by a generic company. Here…

cyclodextrinnews.com

Unfortunately in this scene very few vendors ever disclose the excipients in their peptides, and most users think the volume they choose to reconstitute peptides with doesn't matter.

 

[sionnach]

The tinfoil hat wearers are the ones who believe aggregation is a myth

Oh it definitely exists, as does fragmentation. These molecules are yuge. Tesamorelin itself is over 600 atoms.

I just want to know what specifically about its structure makes Tesa more prone to this than sermorelin, ipamorelin, or any of the polypeptides.

 

[Scottjbco]

until I see another (hopefully trusted) party replicate those results via Jano, I'm taking Finnrick results with a grain of salt

While I am skeptical of Finnrick, I’m even more skeptical of SSA not supplying an updated COA in over 14 months.

 

[archive]

While I am skeptical of Finnrick, I’m even more skeptical of SSA not supplying an updated COA in over 14 months.

If someone isn't interested in fronting the cost of testing themselves, there are several peptide testing groups/servers. It's easier to crowdfund testing for peptides compared to AAS being grey vs black market. I would trust those testing groups/servers before Finnrick atm.

Note to readers -- Please don't reach out to me for info for these testing groups. I don't have invites. Do some searching. They can be found

 

[Ghoul]

Sure would suck to pin what you think is 2mg Tesa daily for 6 months only to discover it was 1mg.

Good idea to get baseline IGF at the least, then recheck a month later for the expected 50-100% boost. It's a cheap blood test.

 

[Photon]

While I am skeptical of Finnrick, I’m even more skeptical of SSA not supplying an updated COA in over 14 months.

Pretty much no 3rd party testing on this board either, it might not be popular enough for routine testing.

 

[AllGoodThings]

Here is an email I wrote to Finnrick addressing what I see as issues with their scoring system. They really need to refine their system as it's giving good companies that test well ridiculously low overall scores for, in my opinion, asinine reasons. They gave a product with high purity and a 11.69mg test result for a 10mg labeled product a 5.4/10 for the fact that it's overdosed, and because it lacks batch numbers. You really need to assess the "why" behind every low score with them, as some are deserved and garbage products, and others are solid but off by 10% and don't have batch numbers, which Finnrick sees as a cardinal sin.

"Just some feedback. A company that consistently produces high purity, but slightly overdosed products should be set apart from companies that score low in purity and/or significantly under dosed with their products. To see a company like Tydes, for example, get such a low overall score due to overdosed samples seems a bit too severe a punishment. I'm not discounting the fact that accurate dosing is important for health and safety, but their highest item over labeled dosing is an 11.69mg reading for a 10mg advertised product. Giving that item a 5.4/10 for that, and for not having batch numbers, is, in my opinion, a bit harsh. If you could weigh the scoring in a way that was more forgiving to slight overdosing, while perhaps a bit harsher on under dosing, and also have batch identifiers scored separately from the overall score with a notation perhaps, would lead to a more accurate portrayal of product quality. We all know how easy it is to fake batch numbers in order to align with Janoshik or other testing, so I feel that metric is of limited value."

 

[Scottjbco]

Just got my COA from Finnrick. For what it's worth, I ignore their score and go off of what I comfortable with. TLDR. 10.1mg 99.25% purity

 

[Photon]

Here is an email I wrote to Finnrick addressing what I see as issues with their scoring system. They really need to refine their system as it's giving good companies that test well ridiculously low overall scores for, in my opinion, asinine reasons. They gave a product with high purity and a 11.69mg test result for a 10mg labeled product a 5.4/10 for the fact that it's overdosed, and because it lacks batch numbers. You really need to assess the "why" behind every low score with them, as some are deserved and garbage products, and others are solid but off by 10% and don't have batch numbers, which Finnrick sees as a cardinal sin.

"Just some feedback. A company that consistently produces high purity, but slightly overdosed products should be set apart from companies that score low in purity and/or significantly under dosed with their products. To see a company like Tydes, for example, get such a low overall score due to overdosed samples seems a bit too severe a punishment. I'm not discounting the fact that accurate dosing is important for health and safety, but their highest item over labeled dosing is an 11.69mg reading for a 10mg advertised product. Giving that item a 5.4/10 for that, and for not having batch numbers, is, in my opinion, a bit harsh. If you could weigh the scoring in a way that was more forgiving to slight overdosing, while perhaps a bit harsher on under dosing, and also have batch identifiers scored separately from the overall score with a notation perhaps, would lead to a more accurate portrayal of product quality. We all know how easy it is to fake batch numbers in order to align with Janoshik or other testing, so I feel that metric is of limited value."

Anything that can't be verified should be weighted low or ignored. E.g batch numbers, we can't verify it, like what Devon used for his oils. Same batch numbers for everything. However mg and purity can be verified, based off HPLC.

Overdosing is also very common, both to account for testing variances and degradation of product during shipping.

 

[Scottjbco]

Anything that can't be verified should be weighted low or ignored. E.g batch numbers, we can't verify it, like what Devon used for his oils. Same batch numbers for everything. However mg and purity can be verified, based off HPLC.

Overdosing is also very common, both to account for testing variances and degradation of product during shipping.

I just posted my new test results. I'm relatively happy with them.

 

[Photon]

I just posted my new test results. I'm relatively happy with them.

I saw the report. Have u seen the website? Is the lab even real? (No clue, I was hoping you'd have info about the legitimacy of the lab and report). Anyone can generate this using gpt in 10mins.

 

[Scottjbco]

I took your advice and went to the site and couldn't pull up the COA. I reached out to the testing lab and they sent me the same report back with the below explanation. I asked Finnrick about this and will post their reply.

 

[tree_respecter]

While I am skeptical of Finnrick, I’m even more skeptical of SSA not supplying an updated COA in over 14 months.

I've got a Jano test for their 10mg recent batch but not a 20mg. It's on their price list but I never see it in promos. Only the Tesa 5 & 10. Is it possible it doesn't see enough interest/shipping to justify? I wonder how much they even keep on deck or if it's more of a "if you really want it, we can make it happen" type deal?

QR code works and using the task/key on Jano website works.

There is also a current 3p test group I'm aware of that is getting sorted, so that's on the horizon at least.

 

[Photon]

I've got a Jano test for their 10mg recent batch but not a 20mg. It's on their price list but I never see it in promos. Only the Tesa 5 & 10. Is it possible it doesn't see enough interest/shipping to justify? I wonder how much they even keep on deck or if it's more of a "if you really want it, we can make it happen" type deal?

QR code works and using the task/key on Jano website works.

There is also a current 3p test group I'm aware of that is getting sorted, so that's on the horizon at least.

The 20mg only just released.
The Finnrick website has it incorrectly listed, its 10mg, not 20.

They're also using a lab which has no details except it has a new 2025 website..like where is it even located lol.

 

[Vicki]

Glad to see lower per dose pricing, but I'd rather pay more for smaller dose units.

It took Tesamorelin's developer 20 years to develop a stable enough formulation for a vial that lasts a week. It was delayed a year because the FDA wasn't convinced. They finally got approval and just released it.

The three previous formulations up to now have all been one dose, reconstitute and use immediately because of rapid aggregation.

I thought this was because the old patent is expiring?

 

[tree_respecter]

The 20mg only just released.
The Finnrick website has it incorrectly listed, its 10mg, not 20.

They're also using a lab which has no details except it has a new 2025 website..like where is it even located lol.

For sure. I have decided to fuck with Finnrick only when taking it with a pallet of salt. The consensus, in just my reading, seems to be that they're prone to choosing labs with inconsistent-at-best results, they negatively review vendors based on some arbitrary metrics, and the shroud of mystery surrounding how they are monetizing their operations. Not a exactly a recipe for confidence.