ConsumerLab vs. Nootropics Depot

I test Swanson stuff all the time. I know what is (and isn't) in their products. You said these results validated your support of Swanson, when Swanson failed and had the least of any brand tested. I was correcting the record on the data. If you want to reject reality to insert your own, so you can keep pretending that Swanson is the best, go right ahead. It's nothing to me. Have at it. While you are at it, why don't you email them and ask for lab testing data and COAs. I am sure you will love the answer they give.

Moreover, the entire reason we are here right now is because Consumer Lab doesn't properly test products to rank them. They don't even seem to understand the science enough to engage in meaningful conversation about why their rankings are flawed. Their lion's mane rankings don't even test is the products are lion's mane or not, and they only measure beta-glucans, which you can spike with other sources. Chaga mushroom was ranked on the same round, and they didn't test for the identity of that, either. Chaga also needs to be grown wild on birch trees, and harvested in winter, or there won't be the beneficial actives. Consumer Lab didn't test for that. Their magnesium rankings don't test for test for the type of magnesium used. They just use ICP-MS to test for the elemental magnesium. That means I can just spike with magnesium oxide and pass their testing. Their maca testing only did DNA and microscopy analysis. They didn't assay for macamides. How can you rank maca without measuring the actives? It's a total joke.

Now let's look at a results where Swanson passed and was APPROVED by Consumer Lab: milk thistle.

https://imgur.com/a/PkXW3m0

So Swanson claimed to have 205mg silymarin. Consumer Lab only found 137.5mg, just 67% of what they claimed. However, CL PASSED THEM ANYWAY!!!! They say that Swanson was using UV-VIS, and outdated an inaccurate methodology, so that excuses them lying to customers and giving less than stated. So they approved Swanson's milk thistle, even though it didn't contain what they said it did. Now let's look at Swanson maca.

https://imgur.com/a/Z2PYEbJ

Consumer Lab found high levels of lead in it. The MADL (Maximum Allowable Dose Level) for lead is 0.5mcg per day. Swanson's maca had 4.56mcg per serving. That means you are 9.12 times the MADL with just a single serving of that maca! We've sourced and tested a lot of maca over the years. When you see lead levels like this, that means this is cheap Chinese maca, not good Peruvian maca. There are likely no macamides at all in most of these products. We would know if CL actually tested that, but they didn't. Now let's look at Swanson's lion's mane.

https://imgur.com/a/9xjgU3n

Remember, Consumer Lab didn't even test for the identity of these products, so this might not even be lion's mane at all. Look at the alpha-glucan (starch) numbers! They are off the charts. No real lion's mane would have alpha glucan numbers that high. Does CL fail them? NOPE! They just say unable to prove.... Noticing a pattern here? So if you want to keep using Swanson because some of the Consumer Lab results show they passed, you go for it. I am telling you right now they are not a good brand, have failed countless times in our lab testing, and won't share lab data to customers. Also, the entire reason we are here right now is because Consumer Lab didn't appropriately test ashwagandha to make the claims they are making, and have shown a pattern of doing that for years.