Comment · Wed, November 7, 2018 · Natrium Health & Nootropics Depot
Reach Genius - Recommendation
Original post in this thread
then00breaper · 0 points
They seem to have the real deal for everything they sell, even if they aren't investing much in things like packaging (super crappy, and they should spend more money in making it look nicer (the word "invest" doesn't exist in Swedish apparently...) but it's only packaging). They don't have third-party tests, but their supplier provides tests for them, and as I understand it their supplier does not manufacture the product, which is maybe a good thing? Still, third-party testing would obviously be good, but again they REALLY don't want to spend money if they aren't immediately making a profit, which shows their business acumen is somewhat lacking. Moreover, they aren't scientifically literate at all - they know next to nothing - but they seem to be doing everything correctly (the only two steps of importance are getting pure substances, and providing accurate dosages). Of course, nobody has checked against them yet, but this is all I've inferred from my private conversations with them.
​
Just posting this on here so people know, though - if NootropicsDepot don't do it, these guys are the next safest bet! :) They certainly aren't perfect though, so I've made some criticisms…
What they were answering
peptidehunter · 1 points
If that's the case, they should show us the Eurofins report.
I agree with you 100%. From what they said they are waiting for results in one of the links you posted.
Swedish customs would test things for identity to allow/disallow them from entry into the country. It's not a >purity/quality control thing for the vendor. US customs sometimes does the same thing. It's purely to allow/disallow >entry, and to ensure it is not a scheduled substance. Trying to use that report as a reliable COA for product purity is not >appropriate.
While it confirms what the material is which is a step up from solely trusting a COA from wherever they buy it from their should be testing for purity as well. It's not to say it's not pure but confirmation would be ideal.
Hahahaha, they changed the Dropbox images and cropped out the fucking top part! Jesus Christ... Those images used >to have a whole top section, and the vendor code was visible in the file name and method folder structure. Now they >just cropped all that out and left the graph itself. Again, shady as hell. I saw the original images they posted when >that thread popped up the first time, and I know exactly who their supplier is.
I haven't seen it so I can't say. My guess would be they didn't want to share their supplier sources. I've seen a few companies post a coa blacking out the company name of their supplier. Who is their supp…
u/MisterYouAreSoDumb · Natrium Health & Nootropics Depot
I agree with you 100%. From what they said they are waiting for results in one of the links you posted.
They should not sell batches till the reports are back. We should never wait for testing results after the products have already been on sale.
While it confirms what the material is which is a step up from solely trusting a COA from wherever they buy it from there but their should be testing for purity as well. It's not to say it's not pure but confirmation would be ideal.
That's testing at random, though. They are not testing every single shipment coming through customs. They pick some at random for inspection, then test those to make sure they are not contraband. Plus, we don't know what Tullverket's methods are. They are looking for contraband, not trying to be a QA/QC department for Swedish companies. GC/MS is not really an appropriate methodology for testing the purity of noopept and phenibut. It can separate volatile compounds. So you can see things like organic solvents and such. However, it is not useful for a real purity number for those compounds. Acting like everything is fine because customs tested it at entry is just insane to me. It should be to everyone else, too.
I haven't seen it so I can't say. My guess would be they didn't want to share their supplier sources. I've seen a few companies post a coa blacking out the company name of their supplier. Who is their supplier?
It doesn't spell out the supplier. You would only notice if you knew what to look for. They removed it because I started telling people those COAs were supplier COAs. Occam's Razor, man. If it said the supplier name at the top, then it would immediately prove they are lying about their "secondary HPLC and mass spec" they had run. So even if they did remove them to not alert people who the supplier was, they were still lying about them being secondary analysis that they ran.