Lab Testing Results Of Turkesterone, Beta Ecdysterone, and Gorilla Mind Sigma

I saw it last night before I went to bed. Decided to sleep on it before responding. I am glad I did. I thought today was going to be argue day, and I was getting stressed. Had I responded last night, I fear things would have escalated. He removed that comment and wrote a more cordial one on the Sika Strength YouTube video comments. I responded on there. I will copy my response here.

_______________________________________________

Ohh good! I saw your comment on Reddit last night, and I feared today was going to be an argument day. I decided to sleep on it and leave it to the morning. I am glad I did. Thank you for revising some of your wording and reaching out in a productive way! I really do just want to help. Poor quality labs giving brands faulty results is something that needs to change.

To start, the LC-MS you posted is technically a failing result. If the capsules are supposed to be 500mg of a 10% turkesterone complex, the total weight of the contents of the capsule including fillers being only 473.88mg means there physically can't be 500mg in there. Plus, ABC only stated there was a total of 239.70mg of the turkesterone complex per capsule. If there was 500mg of a 10% turkesterone complex in there, they would have found 50mg. They found 34.17mg per capsule. I am going to need to see their back-end data to really assess if these numbers are meaningful or not, but just going on the numbers posted it's not a passing result.

So let's talk about the LC-MS methods specifically. We can absolutely run your sample again on UPLC-002 with our mass detector if you want more data. As I was explaining before, it is not necessary because both compounds being assayed have chromophores, so the UV detector can see them perfectly. However, if mass data is really wanted, we can get it. Two of our UPLCs have mass specs on them. On that note, can you get ABC to share their data with you? Get them to share their chromatograms and mass spectra for all standards, samples, blanks, and any and all validation work they did (i.e. spiked samples, spike recoveries, system suitability samples). Seeing this data will help us to determine if their data actually shows what they are claiming. Then have them share their methods with you. They should be fine with that if they are confident in the validity of their science. I've shared ours, even down to the temperature of the column and sample tray, because I am 100% confident in our chemistry. If they decline to give you detailed data, that should throw red flags for you. I will speak to your privately about everything we know about ABC, which should give you red flags enough as it is, but sometimes it is good to see things firsthand. I can't (shouldn't) say a lot of the things I know publicly because I have enough drama right now. Perhaps if we work together, and I convince you that you have been given faulty data, then maybe we can cooperate on trying to do something about that.

Also, this LC-MS results was from March of last year. It was likely on a different batch than we tested. The numbers can vary from batch-to-batch, so it is hard for me to make determinations on the findings without more data. If I had a bottle of that specific batch, then we could do direct comparisons on their data. Maybe you have a retained sample of that batch that we can analyze? Being different batches introduces confounding variables. As I was saying before, China knows the first batches are the most likely to be tested, then brands ease up or go to skip lot testing, so they capitalize on this. I've seen shady stuff from China you wouldn't believe, so that is why serious due diligence is needed in creating a solid ongoing quality control scheme. It sounds like you want to understand how that is done, so I will absolutely help with that if you want. It can get complex, and I know a lot of people that have never dealt with that side just don't know what they don't know. A lot of time labs and contract manufacturers will blow smoke up your ass to convince you they are doing things right, and that more robust methods are not needed. If you don't know what to look out for, you can put your trust in someone that lets you down. I will tell you things privately about the contract manufacturing side of this industry that will surprise you, too. If we get more data from ABC that shows maybe their numbers from last year were legit, it could just be a batch issue.

Regarding the tongkat, you definitely were not making eurycomanone claims. This is why I didn't say it was a failing result. True fails are when something comes in below what is claimed on the label. If claims are not being made, then you can't really have a fail unless there just is none of that extract in the product. Your product did have some bands from tongkat, so it was not a fail. I am glad you researched a bit more on the eurycomanone thing after we first interacted on Reddit. Tongkat ali quality is another thing I have been ranting about for a while. I am relieved to hear you want to reformulate with a different tongkat extract!

As to your question about Alkemist, the short answer is yes, I would trust Alkemist any day over ABC Testing. I would trust my neighbor's 14 year old child over ABC. I'm obviously adding snark here, but I can't express how little I trust ABC. That being said, Alkemist is not perfect. I guess nobody is, but I would like you to be aware that even Alkemist can make mistakes. We do go back and forth with their scientific team when that happens. Maybe they let out a sigh when they get our email, and say: "Here we go again..." LOL. However, they are willing to work with us to get to the bottom of things, which is really good. Take the tongkat results for example. I will preface this by apologizing for being so picky, but scientific precision is just kind of something I can't let go of. I know your comment last night said it sounded like nothing will make me happy, and I don't want it to come across that way. I just care about the scientific details. If you look at the chromatogram from the Alkemist test you posted, look at the shape of the peak. See how it is not really well-defined, and has two shoulders on it? Then look at the little triangles underneath the baseline. That is the software telling you what was integrated into the peak area calculation. The left shoulder is probably okay to integrate. My lab director would certainly prefer to clean up the chemistry a bit to make the peak cleaner and more defined, but he is a perfectionist like me. However, that right shoulder is suspect. It is more like a separate peak. It could be an isomer of eurycomanone, but I would not feel comfortable integrating that into the peak area calculation without a peak purity analysis and mass spec data proving it was eurycomanone. Maybe Alkemist has that, and they could share it with you? Again, we are in detailed chemistry here. Let's say it is not eurycomanone. Maybe the result is 0.03% instead of 0.04%. We are talking small numbers here, so in the grand scheme of things it's not a massive deal. However, for scientific precision it matters. In the end, I trust Alkemist's data way way more than anything from ABC.

Here is what I am talking about, to make it simple: https://imgur.com/a/yDdzN1A

The top one is the Alkemist result of your tongkat. The bottom one is just an example from a sesamin assay on our HPLC. You can see the shoulders on the top that I am referring to. Ideally you would get your chromatography to a point where the peaks look like the bottom one. Again, I am kind of being a chemistry pedant here, but this is the type of precision that we are trying to get to.

I won't get into the ashwagandha, as I can feel myself getting more into a long-winded chemistry conversation. I've already kind of done that, so we can discuss that privately. I am happy that you are reaching out productively! It sounds like you may be wanting to push for the same things I am, but we are coming at it from different angles. This industry is a minefield for people without a background in chemistry. Maybe after some discussions I can convince you how bad things really are. You seem to have a large following. If I can show you the state of the lab testing and quality control in this industry, perhaps you could use that following to spread the message. Then maybe we can start affecting some real change. If you have already reached out to us, which platform did you do it on? I have not seen it yet, but I don't manage all our social medias. Again, thank you for not escalating and trying to come together productively. I really do not want to make enemies, and would love for people who genuinely are trying to do things right to come together to help each other push things forward.

Cheers!

_________________________________________________

Derek has privately reached out to me to try and figure the testing situation out.