Is there a lab that tests and reports on nootropic content? Like labdoor, who sadly aren't doing it yet

I am happy you are being open about things, and are willing to make changes. I just know how much people take things on face value. So rigorously validating methods before rating things is a must. 99% of consumers are not going to question your ratings. They assume things are scientifically validated. That really puts the onus on you guys to live up to that responsibility. People have to trust your ratings mean something. Trying to win back that trust after losing it is a lot harder than delaying things to ensure you don't lose it in the first place.

Trust me, I know just how expensive, difficult, and time consuming some of this testing can be. Sometimes it costs tens of thousands of dollars to validate just a single testing method for a single compound. It can be insane. We have countless products held back right now because I cannot say without a doubt that our methods are valid, or because the methods we have are not working with the specific analytical equipment we have. I've actually had both magnesium L-threonate and magnesium glycinate held back for almost a year because of the testing method issues. I'd rather not sell it than sell an impure or non-fully-chelated product.

This is also why I specifically mentioned magnesium testing, and why I get frustrated when companies I know are doing zero 3rd party testing are getting high reviews on your site. One could simply mix magnesium oxide with glycine, while not fully chelating it, and ICP would show the same as if it were chelated magnesium glycinate; since it's just measuring the amount of magnesium in the sample. It would also make it much cheaper to produce, which is a question often raised with certain Bulk Supplements products. Some of them just cannot be done properly for the prices they charge. So one questions exactly how they are doing it. Pure fully chelated magnesium glycinate will have about 14% magnesium by weight, with 86% being glycine. A lot of companies even buffer in extra magnesium oxide with pure magnesium glycinate, making it cheaper by weight. ICP is not going to be able to tell the difference between fully chelated products, buffered products, and plain mixed products. This is the crux of the issue for me. People buying magnesium glycinate expect they are actually getting a fully chelated product. However, if nobody is properly testing for that, and are merely testing for the amount of magnesium itself, it leaves a lot of room to cut corners and have products that are nowhere near the bioavailability that people expect. These are the types of things that NEED to be in a rating system like yours. You need to be testing these things to death, with validated and accurate methods.

On the same token, you need to be testing for identity on the natural products you rate. If you are rating Panax ginseng, you need to run HP-TLC to ensure the proper species is used. Panax ginseng is often mislabeled American ginseng, since that's cheaper. Rhodiola rosea is very often actually Rhodiola crenulata, or adulterated with it. All the Chinese kanna (Sceletium tortuosum) on the market currently is actually a plant from a completely different genus, Mesembryanthemum. We have found so many fake things, it's absolutely insane! You also have to consider the plant part used for the extract, or the extraction methods used. All of these things play a MASSIVE role in the effectiveness of the specific natural extract. If you are not testing for these things, and rating products based off limited methods, then things like the NuSci snafu happen.

Identity is just as crucial as purity or heavy metals content in natural plant extracts. Yes it's time consuming and expensive. However, it's crucial to be able to actually give useful ratings to products. People are going to see your rating, and believe it to be absolute truth. You have to know that. So it's your responsibility to live up to that expectation, and ensure consumers are not being taken advantage of by vendors. The market NEEDS someone like that. If not you, somebody needs to step up. It seems by your tone that you are willing to. I implore that you have some hard discussions with your team about your testing methodology, and perhaps push off certain ratings till you are sure your methods are going to be accurate enough to ensure the exact identity and purity of the specific product you rate. I want you to be the company the space needs, because nobody else is even trying at the moment, and it's going to be a long time before I have the bandwidth to attempt it myself. I am happy that you are willing to be open and honest, but the community needs you to be more than that. We need you to be accurate and verifiable as well. If you can't 100% guarantee your methods are going to verify a product to the level needed, just hold back on rating till you can. If more companies just held back on things till they could be absolutely certain, we would not even need things like this in the first place. The industry as a whole probably never will, so we need companies like you to hold themselves to a higher standard.