Without looking at the videos, has Derek halted the turkesterone sales? What does he say? I love shit like this.
Says he will post more and higher quality tests of them when he has them sometime this week. They're going at it in the comments portion of the first video. The bulk of it between them -
More Plates More Dates
1 day ago (edited)
Bold title. "Might sell supplements himself". Yes. He's a competitor, and he has done this for years. We have additional third party test results (not using UV-Vis) and have posted elaborate responses in my threads. Our standards come from Chromadex (same place as him). Would've been ideal if you posted my subreddit thread responses too, but I understand that the video would've been very longwinded at that point.
More Plates More Dates
1 day ago (edited)
@Sika Strength there's a LC-MS too, which from what I've seen is reliable for differentiating between Ecdysteroids (
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35420509/). Posting to the same subreddit thread when I get it over email, was the weekend and couldn't get it on a whim (I don't keep much saved on my computer, had to get it forwarded).
More Plates More Dates
1 day ago (edited)
@Nick Falzone the difference in price between LC-MS and UV-Vis are not so astronomical that you could possibly chalk this up to "he wanted to keep QC costs low". We spend millions of dollars on products, if it costs us another $1-2K or whatever it was to get a higher sensitivity test, that's totally worth it. Our first test ever ran on our stuff was UV-Vis to verify the COA standardization matched. We then sent out that same batch of product on our own again separately and got LC-MS done, with a standard purchased from Chromadex, and tested out as hitting the mark for active Turk, which was reassuring as LC-MS seems to be undoubtedly sensitive enough to stratify and avoid potential cross-detection. Truth be told, I don't fully comprehend the chemistry, which is why we pay iso accredited labs to do our unbiased third party testing (why would they care if it came back as legit or not, if it came back as bunk then they'd make more money the more subsequent tests we run with them). If they deemed it appropriate to do LC-MS when we asked for high quality testing, presumably it was to accomplish this sensitivity metric that stratifies between phytoecdysteroids. We wanted high quality testing done, and I believe we did our due diligence on that. I can't speak for other companies in this industry as the claim is that literally every company in the industry is bunk, but we went out of our way to do it as stringently as possible.
More Plates More Dates
More Plates More Dates
21 hours ago (edited)
@Hero Hei it was just the weekend. I don't have everything saved on my computer. I am waiting to get our LC-MS results we got right when we started selling it forwarded to me. I already posted our UV-Vis results. Those showed our material was 10%, but it wasn't satisfactory for specificity evidently. LC-MS eliminates any of the concerns that came with UV-Vis (from what I've been told by chemists and other unbiased experts), and we have those too. They'll be posted on my subreddit thread where this all unfolded once I get them in. In the meantime I'm here responding to threads as if I don't reply people just assume the worst. Of course this is partially damage control, but mainly its defending my name. Look at the title, I need to comment with my side obviously or else people will assume we did nothing and no due diligence was done. I speculate very few other companies who sell Turk will come out and defend themselves or produce any third party test results (the claim here is that every company is bunk worldwide). We're doing our best to put out good products and do our due diligence.
------------------------------------
Nootropics Depot
Nootropics Depot
1 day ago
@More Plates More Dates I have not tested any of your products before. I have tested other products from other companies that have not met label claims for years. That's true. A decade now, actually. I didn't even know who you were. People asked me to buy the product and test it, so I did. I posted the results and all the scientific data. I didn't think it would blow up this much. Everyone out there is selling stuff that doesn't meet label claims. People are having their minds blown here, but this is not a surprising result. So much shit on the market will fail testing.
The paper you just posted is a Q-TOF LC-MS method, or quadrupole time of flight, which is not the standard LC-MS detection type. It's a specialized technology that is mostly used in R&D with high resolution mass specs. The paper was also posted 3 months ago... You are claiming ABC Testing has a very specialized Q-TOF LC-MS and have implemented and validated methods from a Korean research paper from 3 months ago? You posted a research paper about how UV-VIS was just as accurate as HPLC, which the paper didn't even claim. Now we are onto specialized Q-TOF mass spec methods?!? There is no reason to use Q-TOF LC-MS here. There are validated reference standards for both turkesterone and beta ecdysterone. The UV detector on an HPLC or UPLC is perfectly capable of seeing those two molecules, as you clearly saw from the well-defined peaks on our UPLC chromatogram. I even explained in the video that we didn't need to use our mass spec detector on the UPLC because of the chromophores on the molecules. Both turkesterone and beta ecdysterone have a ring system with double carbon bond and an alpha, beta unsaturated ketone, which form a conjugated pi system. This is what allows a UV detector to "see" the molecules. There is really no reason to get mass data; especially Q-TOF mass data.
Like I get it. This shit is blowing up. People are mad. You are mad. However, I just posted detailed scientific data about our findings. We are an ISO certified lab, and take our jobs very seriously. I just want to have people in this industry take analytical chemistry, lab testing, quality control, and scientific validation seriously. I don't want to make enemies. I don't want to get into feuds. I realize it is difficult when someone is posting inconvenient data about your products. I would be upset, too. However, I am not here making things up. The data is real. Again, I am not making any qualitative claims about the efficacy of anyone's product. This is strictly about label claims and chemistry.
132
Nootropics Depot
Nootropics Depot
1 day ago
@Sika Strength If you are interested in seeing more of the data, discussing the chemistry, or anything at all, just let me know. You seem like you know what you are talking about, and like you care about the validity of the analytical chemistry used in this industry. I only want to help force this industry to be better. Things need to change.
