Comment · Sun, February 2, 2020
Cordyceps labeling/cordycepin content
Original post in this thread
Aldarund · 7 points
Why cordyceps have cordycepin content labeled as .3% instead of 0.3% ? Its could be easily seen and interpreted as 3% instead of 0.3%, especially when dont look too carefully. It could easily mislead people.
And second question - why its only 0.3% even in 8-1 extract. For example competitor vendor extract show up 1.3% of cordycepin in 3rd party COA
What they were answering
JA_48 · 2 points
That subreddit is made by a competitor who is on a mission to badmouth us as much as they can. I get how there might be confusion, but that subreddit is not acting in good faith. We have tons of evidence of that fact....I could have made a ton of money lying like they have, and just selling a cheap Chinese mycelium extract like they are, then telling people it has 5% erinacines or some other made up number like they are.
The markup that company is charging is so INSANE, too. I know where they get their stuff. They are ripping people off like crazy, but people keep saying they are quality, and even stupid shit like they have their own extraction technique... They buy it from a Chinese supplier! I know the exact one. It's CHEAP, too.
All this info will be released in time. Proper science is difficult and takes time. We are very close, though.
Great work! You are one of the few sellers I trust.
I know the seller you are referring to. DISHONEST is the theme that comes to mind. I look forward to you submitting the science here at reddit that proves it.
One question, does that mean the lab that did their CofA for lion's mane cant be trusted either?
u/MisterYouAreSoDumb
We've called that lab to verify the testing results, along with the methods and reference standards they used. They literally told us that they will give us ZERO information about that test, and that the methods are an in-house R&D method that they will not release any information on. So no validations, no reference standards, and not even a release of what types of machines they used or confidence intervals for their results. That means it's either completely fabricated data or they are making wild claims based on unproven assumptions in the methodologies. The scientific validity of methods are crucial. There are a lot of people out there misusing science to mislead and defraud people. That pisses me off more than you can imagine, because the consumer doesn't know analytical chemistry. They don't know what it takes to make real science tell you valid things in the lab. They TRUST science. However, when someone comes along and uses people's trust in science to defraud them, those consumers lose that trust. It erodes something that I should be held up to a higher standard. If you are going to lie, just go out and completely bullshit people like everyone does. Don't use fake science to make it seem legitimate. Because when it turns out to be BS, and it most certainly will, you don't just erode people's trust in your word, you make people skeptical of real science that actual qualified people are doing. It then becomes a case of: "Who knows who to believe! There's conflicting data everywhere!" No, there really isn't. There's well-done and validated data, then there are lies. This is not a case of conflicting data that you need to weigh with the same weight. This is a case of people wanting to see numbers, and using bad science to do it.