Absorb Health responds to criticisms

Are you daft? I posted the 3rd party COA of the exact product you asked for (SR9009). You are deflecting yet again. We have plenty of 3rd party COAs going back years, along with doing a lot of in-house testing. I do not have time to sit here with you trying to deflect your issues back onto me.

These are not manufacturer's COA's but a 3rd party lab's.

They are sent out by your manufacturer. You are not getting the raw materials in, then sending to labs of your choice. Your manufacturer is. You have absolutely no idea if your manufacturer is sending samples of the same stuff they are using in your production batches. Have you even vetted the two labs they are using? AATS looks like a fake lab. Have you been on their site?!? Seriously, WTF is up with their site?

http://aatestingservice.com

Again, all the COAs I am clicking on from them are from 2015... You have not done any more recent testing in over 2 years? Sketchy labs and no recent testing is what I am seeing from you. Adrafinil, 2015. ALCAR, 2015. Alpha-GPC, 2015. Bacopa, 2015. They are all 2015!!!! Your phenibut "COA" is from a damn Chinese supplier! The big Google Drive link you shared is all 2015 tests from sketchy labs or Chinese suppliers.

This whole time you've denigrated our procedures when it seems yours our less sound than ours. I applaud you for all of your equipment! But when it comes to testing, if I had to rely primarily on a 3rd party test or an in-house test, I choose 3rd party test any day of the week. Additionally, I'd prefer outsourcing manufacturing to a manufacturer that specializes in just that, unless I was an absolutely enormous, $200M+ company.

You seriously have yourself deluded. Your testing is from unknown labs that don't' even look legitimate, from over 2 years ago, and using the incorrect analytical methods on a number of them. I'm not finding a whole lot on your contract manufacturer, either.

Secondly, anyone who looks at that graph of ginseng will see that there is an enormous amount of overlap in what was tested and what is the standard.

Someone asked you to explain the overlap, and you say cellulose and "plant material". Really? I've seen other spectrographs and they don't have remotely the same shape. If your opinion was true, then all capsules tested would have virtually the same graph.

Seriously?!? You have no idea what you are talking about. Ask anyone out there that is experienced in HPLC. They will tell you. Hell, that's Alkemist Labs who ran the testing and gave the conclusions! They have been a leader in the botanical analytics space for decades. Just because you have no idea how to read an analytical output doesn't make the results less conclusive. Your ginseng capsules contained ZERO ginseng. Why have you not consulted with someone that knows what they are doing, and can advise you on the results? Do you really think I am making this up, or is all this outrage just for show to make it seem like you have a legitimate argument to those who don't know what to look for? Ask any analytical chemist you want to look at those results. The damn methods, columns, and wavelengths are all there on the document. You just don't get it, dude.

My products are not so exotic or dare I say dangerous that I've ever had to create a reference standard, but I do think that if there is just one sample that the standard is drawn from that perhaps something that is actually only 70% purity becomes the "standard" for you, and the new 100% purity.

Again, you have zero idea of what you are talking about. Do you know what an NMR is? What about a mass spec? You know that you can use those devices to analyze exactly the chemical composition of a sample, even if you don't know what it is, and have no reference standard. Then you can create your own HPLC methods to give an exact purity number, and can run tests to ensure the accuracy of those methods? Hell, you can run melting point assays of a chemical to help do extra confirmation of the purity range. You literally know nothing about analytical chemistry, but are arguing with me about simple things like you do. Standards are created somewhere. They run through this process to create them. You can pay labs to do that for you for new compounds, or hire analytical chemists to do it for you. We use Sigma Aldrich or USP standards for most things, but we do sometimes have to pay labs to create standards ourselves. That's just for chemical compounds. Then for botanical extracts it gets even more crazy. You have samples from root, stem, leaf, etc. You have samples using ethanol extraction, water extraction, or other solvent extractions. You have samples from different regions, or grown in different climates. There is no one standard for things. Science is a lot more complex than you think.

To be honest, there are really only a few suppliers of these nootropics ingredients, so unless someone is an evil scientist and wants to hurt people by tampering with things, everyone should pretty much have the same thing. That's how it's supposed to be in the supplement industry. Absorb Health's arginine has to be the same as GNC's arginine. Absorb Health's adrafinil has to be the same as so and so's adrafinil.

Really, man? Really? Do you honestly believe that? There are different synthesis methods, different yields, different final purification steps, different solvent residues, different heavy metals limits, different milling sizes, different moisture contents, etc. You also have different salt forms of compounds, like ALCAR HCL, ALCAR freeform, ALCAR tartrate, etc. Some things you have dihydrochloride or hydrate forms. That's just synthetics. I already touched on just how different naturals can be. It's insane how much variability there is in natural extracts! Is that 10:1 a water extract or ethanol? Did it use the roots, leaves, or a combination? Did you know the ginsenoside content in the leaves is much higher than the roots, and that the specific types of ginsenosides varies drastically by species?

There are also hundreds of suppliers for the more common things. Do you really think this stuff is all the same, coming from the same place? I reject different barrels from the same supplier and batch, not to mention batch to batch from the same suppliers, or from supplier to supplier. I've rejected hundreds of batches over the years for all number of reasons. I stop selling products altogether when I notice quality falling across the board. Notice how that SR9009 you pointed to on our site is out of stock? It has been for a long time. We rejected a couple batches, and I'll probably just drop the product because of inability to get quality product. You're just trucking along thinking everything is the same, and your contract manufacturer is looking out for your best interest? Naive doesn't even scratch the surface. If you were not putting your customers at risk, I might not be so upset about it. However, your lack of knowledge in this industry is dangerous.

Listen, I am not going to keep going back and forth with you. I paid to have your ginseng professionally tested at a qualified lab, and gave you the results. It's fake. Do whatever you want with that information. I personally would fly out to my contract manufacturer, and have some long hard talks about things. I'd actually fire everyone involved, but that's me. This is your business, though. Keep ignoring what I am saying and selling fake products. Keep blinding trusting that your contract manufacturer is testing things properly, and believing that sketchy AATS place is a legitimate lab. Keep shouting as loud as you can about your over 2 year old COAs. I am sure some people will listen to you.