D.N.

Stick with bacteriostatic water. I've been doing growth promotion and USP Challenge studies for 25 years. No active growth ≠ sterile. Once that saline vial is open, contamination sneaks in way too easily without perfect aseptic technique every time. Sterile water is for one time use, as outlined in the British, European, and U.S Pharmacoipia.

Part 5 Janoshik's lab tour discussing the use of sterile water for reconstitution

@Krysia830073 Let usknow if you are ever in Washington, we'd be happy to give you a tour of our ISO accredited lab. @Vanguard_Lab

Janoshik's lab is huge and he's shown me around the whole building, so I've split the tour into instalments. Here is part 1

The lab says Brown University affiliated but does not have a .edu domain, nor is it linked anywhere from the official Brown University website. Claims Iso 17025, but is not listed on any of the ISO accreditation sites. Website was created in 2025 and looks like the country code is Hong Kong. Doesn't mean much to say that the coas can be verified if the verification is from a fictitious lab.

Kaylea the rep hasn't ghosted and she's standing by her COAs and Peptide mom is one of her clients

@TrustPointe @kalos21million Agree 100%. I see far more sterility failures @Vanguard_Lab than I do endotoxin failures.

Should get them all if you can (or only buy from vendors that have COAs with everything) I’d swap sterility and endotoxin if i had to choose. That is as fundamental as knowing that it’s the right peptide and label claim. Injecting a little endotoxin seems infinitely less harmful than injecting an unknown microorganism 🦠

Quality testing on peptides is such a hot topic. How much is needed at the end of the day. Do heavy metals matter at such low doses? How many are truly contaminated with endotoxin? Is it worth it for me to wait and pay for sterility? I made a pyramid to visualize the full scope…at least as far as a high level grey market test will go. More info on my site, wording and specifics may be tweaked…but check it out and give me your initial thoughts. Agree or disagree on the levels? pepguide.net

@Vanguard_Lab tests peptides, research chems compounded pharmaceuticals, food and environmental samples. US based ISO 17025 Accredited, DOE/DOH accredited, and a AFDO/FDA recognized Process Authority. Quarterly proficiency testing, and full transparency, and have no plans to raise prices.

Another strong round of external proficiency testing for Vanguard Laboratory. In LGC PHARMASSURE Round 96, Vanguard achieved: • 6 out of 6 assessments satisfactory • 0 questionable results • 0 unsatisfactory results This round included pharmaceutical and dietary supplement matrices, with successful performance in: • HPLC active ingredient quantification in throat lozenges • Microbiological sterility testing, including correct identification of contaminated and sterile samples under USP <71> External proficiency testing is one of the ways we verify that our methods, instruments, and analysts are performing consistently against independent benchmarks. Vanguard participates in proficiency testing quarterly across a broad range of analytes and technologies, including endotoxins, API quantification, sterility, aerobic plate count, E. coli, Salmonella, nitrates, water activity, pesticides, residual solvents, and more. Our PT program supports work across LC-MS/MS, GC-FID, GC-MS, HPLC, UV-Vis, PCR, wet bench chemistry, ICP-MS, ELISA, and related instrumentation. Consistent, accredited performance matters , especially when results are used to make real quality decisions.

@Vanguard_Lab has a Sciex triple quad LC-MS/MS QTRAP, an Agilent HR-QTOF, more than a half dozen Agilent and Shimadzu HPLCs with DAD, ELSD, RID, and fluorescence detectors, plus ICP-QQQ, GC-MS, and other instrumentation. That said, for most of the FDA-regulated pharma and compounding work we do, the industry standard remains USP-based HPLC-UV/Vis/DAD methods. For routine QC, repeatability, low RSD, accuracy, ruggedness, and method transferability matter more than simply having the highest-resolution instrument available. HPLC-DAD, and in some cases single quadrupole MS, often make the most sense for routine release and stability testing. QTRAP methods using MRM/SRM are valuable when we are looking for trace-level analytes in complex matrices. HR-QTOF is an excellent tool for accurate-mass work, unknown ID, impurity investigations, and method development, but it is not commonly used as the default platform for routine industry QC. In routine pharma testing, “more advanced” does not always mean “more appropriate.” The right method is the one that is validated, rugged, reproducible, fit for purpose, and aligned with the regulatory standard.

@TrustPointe We do, usually its percent NAD+, percent nicotinamide, and then all other impurities. Currently liking the agilent AdvanceBio peptide plus column for it on HPLC, and a HILIC when we run it on LCMSMS.

Anyone out there reporting Purity for NAD+? Or are we the only ones thinking about it?

@TrustPointe Its always a crap shoot with glow and klow on what the "TB-500" will actually be. Love it when we are provided CAS numbers.

PSA: TB-4 and TB-500 are not the same thing. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

I feel like i'm constantly explaining that. Without knowing the expected concentration we have to prep the sample at multiple dilutions to make sure it is midpoint on our curve. We can test unlabeled vials with unknown concentrations but it always slows things down since different analytes may require different sample prep, different dilutions and different hplc methods.

This also explains why we respond that a result is “outside the validated range of our method” when there is a mix-up in vials (e.g. told it was 10mg and it was actually 30mg). We prepped it so the ppm would be within our validated method range, and it was inadvertently much higher (3x in this case), so we can no longer certify the accuracy of the result.

This is actually really cool data from @tread_on_them that can be used illustrate the importance of Linearity. Look at the graph for BPC-157 (top). First, I’m going to note that this is a good linearity result (r2 0.99858) for the range tested See how point 3 (50ppm) and point 4 (100ppm) aren’t exactly on that line? A linear equation will be used to calculate the peptide content result based on the response. If the response isn’t linear (dots are not on the line across the range in the validation), the equation may not calculate an accurate result. Checking linearity as part of method validation is critically important. Different peptides can have non-linear responses at different concentrations and wavelengths. I’ve seen s-shaped dots around the line (failed validation, ask me how I know). You can also flood a detector to the point where it can’t register any “more”. That would look like the dots becoming horizontal toward the right side of the graph. If your lab can’t provide validation data like this, there’s risk in the results. Accuracy by accident is not the same as accuracy by design.

We run a opening ccv continuing ccv closing ccv, lcs, and matrix spike and matrix spike dupe with each batch of samples. LCS contains different peptides at different ranges of the curve which is control charted. Majority of peptide samples are also spiked with a surrogate to monitor variation in sample prep.

@tread_on_them Linearity, but no precision or accuracy. Follow through with sample prep controls to ensure the sample prep falls within the linearity range?

Since I harp on method validation, I’ll post receipts. USP <1225> method validation results for our very first method, TM-1001 Validated Range: 75ppm to 250ppm Linearity r-squared 1.000 @ 75ppm Accuracy 99.5% Precision 0.7% RSD @ 100ppm Accuracy 99.0% Precision 0.4% RSD @ 125ppm Accuracy 98.8% Precision 0.2% RSD @ 200ppm Accuracy 100.3% Precision 0.3% RSD @ 250ppm Accuracy 100.5% Precision 0.7% RSD If you are a lab running validated methods, post your receipts below 👇🏻

@TrustPointe @Vanguard_Lab Its our draft method validation we are doing for peptides in sublinguals, creams, and gels. I just used our preservative validation file as a template and apparently didn't update the header

@tread_on_them @Vanguard_Lab Not bad, has the elements. Looks like its for preservatives?

Another Forged COA. Logo is wrong, signatures forged, chromatogram altered, Iso logo not the one we use. Approved by "Teri Johnson" we have a Tori but no Teri's have ever worked at Vanguard...

@trinity2pointO Have them send the "Bunk" vials to vanguard. Ill test them for free. I doubt ER has anything to worry about.

Bunk vials.? I’m pretty skeptical. I put my name on this company and stand behind everything I sell… for good fucking reason. You need to trust not only the company but the people that are behind it. I’d suggest you tell your buddy to reach out directly… Or shit, make it public. We can talk about it here in front of everyone. I’m positive there’s something that doesn’t add up here. I personally think you a full of shit but let’s see.

For what its worth the standard in actual Pharma QC labs is HPLC-UV-vis . Been testing pharma, and FDA regulated products for 25+ years and it is still the standard. LCMS has its place and high res mass spec is required for characterizing the impurities but its not common in industry on routine testing. Id like to see the validation data they have, also curious if the lab is ISO 17025 accredited?

@Krysia830073 @grok explain to me like I am a dummy

The difference between the standard HPLC-UV testing vs UZORAk'S advanced analysis HRLC-MS 99.52% vs 94.29%

For 25 years I've worked in regulated food/pharma/nutraceuticals in R&D/QCQA / regulatory. Currently I test peptides/OTC drugs/prescription drugs from compounders, pharma, university researchers and grey market sellers, etc. All are being tested with the same instrumentation and methods. The biggest difference is compounders and cgmp facilities have traceability back to raw materials and test more samples per batch. The majority of routine pharma testing is RP-HPLC, not LCMSMS, and certainly not CD spectroscopy.

Why pharma peptides slap harder than research/compounded Thread 1/

In the meantime I'm paying 3000 a year and when I ask it to export to a docx i get "Copy everything above (from “April 19, 2026” through the end of References). Paste into a blank Microsoft Word document. Select all → Font = Times New Roman, Size = 12 pt. Set Line spacing = 1.5. Save as: Letter_Final_19Apr2026.docx The file will match the exact formatting.docx style guide you supplied earlier."

Plugins for Excel, PowerPoint, Word, … coming soon

@DavidPe51482177 @Austen Wish that had been an option. I worked full-time while getting a BS in microbiology, BS in chemistry, and later masters in molecular biology, and a graduate cert in foodsafety. If self paced or online I could have saved years of time.

@Austen 33 credit hours does not make a bachelor’s degree. And it’s a business degree. Try earning 33 credit hours in 3 months in some STEM field.

Earning a bachelor’s degree in three months is so funny

@VanceE @MindOfIntra @Vanguard_Lab Tested the Methylene Blue. All tests performed are on the labs A2LA ISO 17025 scope.

@MindOfIntra Yup

Someone “third party tested” Meraki and posted it on Reddit. I already can’t stand Reddit but they’re trying to say we have a high amount of microbes and shouldn’t be considered pharma grade. We get our MB from a pharmaceutical company in the states that I had to sign 4 million documents for and pay a fk ton because of how it’s tested. We also have two third party tests, a COA, and have been randomly tested here on X and passed every single time. I’m starting to think this was deliberate but whatever, gonna be attacked as long as we’re in business.