Comment · Tue, July 25, 2023 · ND Owner
r/NMN says ND is D tier???
Original post in this thread
SoThisIsInteresting · 59 points
The subreddit nmn gave ND a D tier grade for their nmn product. I’ll try to link in the comments so you can read what it entails.
u/misteryouaresodumb say it aint so. I spend probably $500+ a year w you guys. I’m curious if you've seen this, if this has been posted before, and what has been done.
Ive been taking enteric coated for a few weeks now so I am just trying to understand whats going on here. Thanks
What they were answering
Jack-o-Roses · 3 points
Are individual tests accredited/certified under ISO 17025
Did NIST provide the true value of the blind after the study closed?
We've been the similar outlier - initially failing against an 'actual' 'total value.'
We got a notably higher value because our result was by total dissolution (sodium carbonate fusion) instead of an acid leach. Their sample soil blank had the target in it that they didn't account for.
Doing the best analytical Chem has its own challenges. Do y'all participate in the appropriate ASTM technical committee(s). I highly recommend it.
Thanks for all you do - I do wish that you could still provide peptides & the nootropics that you were able to in the past - but I fully understand why.
u/MisterYouAreSoDumb · ND Owner
Yeah, ISO 17025 adds specific tests to your scope. It's just a lot of validation work to do so, so most labs don't. Then you can get flexible scopes on some things. That's what we did for our HPTLC. We were adding each test to our scope each audit, but I noticed that Alkemist has a flexible scope on theirs. That basically said they had shown enough proficiency in the methodology that they were certified to test any botanical on HPTLC and have it be in scope. We spoke to our auditor, and she agreed to do that for us. We had to do extra work to show competency in general on the methodology, and we were awarded a flexible scope for testing the identity of dietary supplements and botanicals via high performance thin layer chromatography. So now we don't have to do separate validation work for every single botanical we test on HPTLC. That's the same for our beta-glucan testing, FTIR chemical identity, and for our GC residual solvents testing. We don't need to add every analyte to the scope for those, as we were able to get our accreditation body to give us flexible scopes. However, they won't do that for GC/LC assays. For those they want you to do validations for every analyte, and list them separately on the scope.
I will have to ask my lab director about ASTM. I think he might participate in some. I know we are part of the AOAC (Association of Official Analytical Chemists), and attend their conference every year. We have also attended the Oxford ICSB (International Conference on the Science of Botanicals) multiple times now. We also work closely with the people from Waters and CAMAG on improving methods and writing application notes for new botanicals/fungi. We are also beta testing Waters' new software, and my lab director has flown out to their headquarters in Massachusetts to give opinions on their next generation UHPLC systems. They're awesome to work with, but they are very much focused on pharma. We are trying to help them tailor offerings to the supplement industry.