ND is lying about their in house testing

Since you are spamming this everywhere, I will put a link with my response everywhere.

https://www.reddit.com/r/NootropicsDepot/comments/1ddeb2x/yall_wanna_explain_dis/l84g7mw/

Since many people don't have access to Consumer Lab, I will also post their value rankings here.

Even with their flawed methods, we still ranked the 4th best value ashwagandha. That's only looking at 8 of the 40 withanolides. Imagine if they had looked at all of them! I'll copy some of my responses so people don't have to hunt.

Here is their methodology section:

Total withanolides and withanosides are calculated as the sum of withanoside IV, withanoside V, withanoside VI, withaferin A, 12-deoxywithastramonolide, withanolide A, withanone and withanolide B (USP-DSC 2023). Root/rhizome powders are expected to contain a minimum of 0.3% (wt./wt.) total withanolides and withanosides (USP-DSC 2023) and extracts expected to contain a minimum of 1.5% (wt./wt.) total withanolides and withanosides (CL minimum based on Industry Standard). The minimum will be applied if the product does not state an amount of total withanolides and withanosides in an Ashwagandha-based ingredient or if the claimed amount is lower than the expected minimum. (Although not a requirement for Pass, any product claiming or providing less than 6 mg of withanolides and withanosides per daily dose will be noted in the Review as providing a "low dose").

So you can see they are only looking at 8 of the over 40 withanolides in ashwagandha. We are quantifying much more than that.

Here is the UPLC chromatogram from the most recent batch of Shoden.

We are seeing 48% withanolides when you look at the full picture. Of course if you only look at a small grouping of withanolides in the sample it won't meet specs! No shit! If I were to calculate the number of words in a book by only looking at the first page, I would get a low number, too. If there are over 40 withanolides in ashwagandha, how does only looking at 8 of them make sense? They can fall back on "Well this is the USP monograph!" all they want, but they have been made aware of the issue in the past, and they continue to choose to rank products by ignoring the majority of the actives. This is not the first time Consumer Lab has ranked products using shitty science. Their lion's mane rankings are an absolute joke! I'll copy their methodology for that one, so you can all have a laugh at how worthless their rankings are.

Here is how they tested lion's mane to rank products...

Yep, that's right! They didn't even TEST TO SEE IF THE PRODUCTS WERE LION'S MANE!!!! No identity testing of any kind. They tested for beta-glucans, which we all know can come from many sources. Oats have beta-glucans. Yeast has beta-glucans. Many suppliers out of China right now are mixing mushroom powders with cheap yeast beta-glucans to pump the numbers up. Chinese suppliers have admitted to us they are doing it, and said they can do different ratios of yeast beta-glucans to lion's mane to get the numbers people want to see. Consumer Lab ranking lion's mane on completely faulty data, while not even do the fucking basic test to see if the products are even lion's mane, just underscores where their rankings belong: right in the trash! Imagine trying to convince consumers that you are an authority on testing and ranking of products, but then you don't even test to make sure the products you are ranking are even the species they are supposed to be! Seriously, I feel like we are living in a clown world! The absolute MINIMUM Consumer Lab should have done was to test the lion's mane products to see if they were even lion's mane. I shouldn't even have to say that!!!! Of course you should test to see if products are even real before you rank them! Just utter incompetence.

In that same round, they ranked chaga as well. For chaga to work, it needs to grow wild on birch trees, then be harvested in a short period in the middle of winter. This is because birch trees concentrate nutrient in themselves to survive the winter months, and the chaga then absorbs these nutrients and bioconverts them to the actives we want in chaga. You can't cultivate chaga and have it work the same as wild chaga harvested in winter, as it won't have the actives. Does Consumer Lab take that into account at all in their rankings? NOPE! Does Consumer Lab even test to see if the products they ranked were even chaga at all? NOPE! You know how they determine if a product is fruiting body or mycelium? They look at the label... Yep, they just take the brand's word for it. You might as well just close your eyes and randomly pick products. That's about as good as Consumer Lab's ranking methodologies.