84 replies to this topic

[zoolander]

Zoolander,

I hear your concern and your compassion, but I have just one question for you...

Did you notice that your avatar spins like three to five times faster if you log into ImmInst with Firefox instead of Internet Explorer?

Yep. All the more reason to change over to firefox

[Brainbox]

Once again regarding the statistical significance, what do we want to proof?

Quality of one pill, one bottle, a whole batch, the credibility of a supplier?

However it might seem an obvious one, this is a very important question. Testing the credibility of a supplier by testing one or two bottles might not proof anything. Testing these bottles on a statistical significant way will not help in achieving our goal of testing the credibility of a supplier, on that level our perfect bottle test will still be statistical insignificant. You just cannot compare apples with oranges.

Especially if we want to warn ignorant future customers of this supplier, we will have to be very precise in defining our aim first and after that the testing method that is required to reach that aim. Not the other way round.

The assumption we have now is that in testing one or two bottles, we will find something negative. Maybe we will. But what will that add to the case we are trying to make? As far as I understand, we will only have the possibility to follow this up with legal action initiated by the original buyer of this bottle. As an individual case. To have this test to escalate to the level we want it to be, I think we should be prepared to invest a lot of time in legal activities.

Don’t understand me wrong here, I’m all in favour of doing something. But what are our capabilities in this situation? Is my view to pessimistic?

Edited by brainbox, 27 May 2006 - 11:02 AM.

[xanadu]

Zoo, don't back down and don't wimp out. Make your results public. If not, then others will make them public for you. Why bother to do it if you are going to keep it a secret? Seems like the vendors have you on the back foot rather than vice versa. This talk about lawsuits is nothing but a smoke screen. You see people all over the net giving their opinion on stuff they bought and some reviews are quite scathing. How many get sued? None that I've head of, not just for net posting. How can they prove you wrote anything that appears under the zoolander name? It would be extremely hard plus they have to come to Australia to sue you knowing they will collect nothing. But if you are getting scared, maybe someone else will take up the gauntlet.

Who is brave enought to do this and post the results? I would contibute to a public thing but not if it's going to be kept secret.

[zoolander]

I'm covering my bases. I looking into it further. My goal is to make it public. I will only do this if there are no legal consequences. So far it doesn't look like it is against the law.

I'm speaking with analytical lab today. I have decided not to run the samples myself as this may add bias. It will be independant. I am going to ask a reliable person to blind the powders that I have before I give it to the lab. The powders will merely be labelled powder A, B and so on. This way I won't even be able to subconsciously hint to the lab guys which powders I am handing over.

the study will be designed in the best way possible.

[Mike M]

I have no problem with anything being tested. I just want to make sure it is done correctly. I want to provide the best stuff I can. Like I said, if someone will provide me a lab contact, I'll contact this week and get Piracetam tested.

[xanadu]

Zoolander, I'm glad to hear they have not forced you to cave in. "they" meaning those who might not want you to do the tests. Naturally, no one here falls in that catagory. Like I say, I'll chip in a nominal amount soon as I get an addy to send it to and assuming you are going to go ahead. It will have to be US dollars, that's all I have.

It will be meaningless if the distributors being tested know they are being tested. I feel confident BN would send to you or to the lab the same thing they send out to customers. We can't be sure all vendors will be as ethical and upfront as them, however. If they all were, we wouldn't have as much need for testing in the first place. The samples being tested must be those that were sent out to ordinary buyers, not a *special* sample sent just to be tested. Consumers Reports sends in staffers to buy merchandise for cash off the sales floor without any fanfare. Give your procedures, let people discuss them in advance and there should be no problems. I would believe results obtained like that even from someone without an advanced degree over the self serving hype from a distributor. Be vigilant that vendors not be allowed to send in free samples or otherwise give you things to influence you. I'm not joking, it will happen sooner or later and may happen a lot. You will gain a lot of prestige if you pull this off. You could later legitimately sell advertising on your site to recoup costs.

[scottl]

In uni's case I would wonder if he is being on better behavior now then before (or maybe he is so arrogant that he would not bother being on good behaviour). In any case I have several bottles of piracetam still sealed with his seal and well within expiration. I could send you those.

Edit: to be clear, these are from before the liftmirage debacle.

[zoolander]

Just for the record, prometheus has sighted a signed decleration, which he witnessed and holds an original, of non-association with any supplement companies. Let's get that out of the way once and for all. The intent of my interest is to provide information solely for educational purposes.

For reliabilities sake, chain of custody is important. Scottl, keep those sealed contained sealed.

In regards to being sued....if a vendor were to file against me it would be to prove that the stuff that I tested wasn't theirs. If the stuff that I tested was theirs and I can show chain of custody they haven't got a case. They can however make my life difficult but hey, life's not easy.

Edited by zoolander, 29 May 2006 - 05:29 AM.

[doug123]

Just for the record, prometheus has sighted a signed decleration, which he witnessed and holds an original, of non-association with any supplement companies. Let's get that out of the way once and for all. The intent of my interest is to provide information solely for educational purposes.

For reliabilities sake, chain of command is important. Scottl, keep those sealed contained sealed.

In regards to being sued....if a vendor were to file against me it would be to prove that the stuff that I tested wasn't theirs. If the stuff that I tested was theirs and I can show chain of command they haven't got a case. They can however make my life difficult but hey, life's not easy.

This will be a victory for the consumer. Viva le revolution! Viva le revolution!

Heh. Funny. That's the kind of stuff I was saying when I was testing Rizzer's stuff two years ago and I was (and apparently still sometimes am) the crazy guy ranting on heavy metals in large red letters: "victory for the consumer!" Hardly, it's a nightmare for the consumer. That's kind of why I got into this business in the first place. I sketched out hard core in November of 2004 when the Journal of the American Medical Association announced that "One of 5 Ayurvedic HMPs produced in South Asia and available in Boston South Asian grocery stores contains potentially harmful levels of lead, mercury, and/or arsenic" (1) I was taking a whole bunch of cheap Chinese and Indian supplements from smi2le.biz and BAC (about 30) and was somehow sure that I had encountered heavy metal toxicity. Well I didn't somehow. Maybe because I take a hell of a lot of metal chealtors, such as NAC, R-alpha-lipoic acid, L-carnosine, MSM, chorella, hmm...what else...?

I would bring up the topic but won't for the sake of happier days. Victory would be to have a guaranteed safe "dietary supplement" market in the USA -- but that would be cost prohibitive. And it would be helpful too to discern if any of these purported cognitive enhancers have any clinical effect before wasting any of our cash on unproven science.

Peace.

[doug123]

I have no problem with anything being tested. I just want to make sure it is done correctly. I want to provide the best stuff I can. Like I said, if someone will provide me a lab contact, I'll contact this week and get Piracetam tested.

Analytical Laboratories In Anaheim, Inc., is a good lab as far as I know. I have used them a couple of times last year, and so has AOR, Pete, and Mr. Palada. They just HPLC'd Pete's Piracetam (this is an assay on finished product); but it's helpful that they post the methodology for everything.

At Analytical Laboratories In Anaheim, Inc.:

All analytical procedures are fully documented for your on-site audit and GMP compliance need. We use regulatory and widely accepted industry methods such as USP, AOAC, AHP, AOCS, INA and ASTA methods whenever such methods exist. Our in-house validated analytical methods and Statistical Quality Controlled (SQC) laboratory performance will deliver consistent and reliable lab reports on your samples.
Our client service team has created the most detailed sample and report tracking system to assure prompt communication to our clients on lab results and to maintain tracebility on samples and reports. Client inquiries on their samples will be either answered on the spot or within the next business day. This is our guarantee to you.
Our desire to become a partner in the success of your business will make your testing dollars go a long way. You will not just receive a one-page report for each of your sample. We will track normal /abnormal sample trends for the history of your products. We will discuss and provide our opinion whenever there is a need. Our high quality lab performance plus strict record/document-keeping system will help you to defend your product through the toughest scrutiny.

Peace.

[zoolander]

Chain of custody. I stand corrected. Thank you prometheus

[Brainbox]

The blindness approach seems OK.

How are you going to record and proof the chain of custody? Especially considering blinding the samples?

Maybe you should involve a third individual who records the procedings and who is legaly capable to do so (is "notary" the right word here? I'm not native English, sorry).

[xanadu]

This being sued thing is nothing but a smoke screen, in my opinion. It is not going to happen. You can have a chain of custody with the pope himself swearing everything is on the up and up and it wouldn't make any difference if someone really wanted to sue. Not that it's a bad idea to document your procedures, it helps with consumer acceptance of the results but it really comes down to your personal integrity. Zoo, you've established yourself here already and there are few if any who could do a better job. No one is going to fly to Australia to sue you especially since you are a student with few assets. If you had millions it would still be unlikely but at least then they would have something to shoot at.

brainbox wrote:

"Maybe you should involve a third individual who records the procedings and who is legaly capable to do so"

This proposed testing is not a legal procedure. The idea is to show that the testing was done carefully and properly. People want to know the samples tested came from the vendor mentioned but it all comes down to believing or not believing zoolander. Those who don't want to believe, don't have to. Zoo will become the Consumer's Reports and Ralph Nader of the nootropic world all rolled into one. What may happen is others will later copy this and set up their own websites with test results.

Speaking of websites, it would be very good to have one. Posting in the forum will do in the interim but you could get a free website or even get your own domain a little later down the road. All costs for your own site including registration, hosting and data transfer should be under $50 a year unless the hits and data transfer become very large. That is not a bad thing because you could charge decent money for advertising. No ads from noot distributors or makers but it could be capsule manufacturors, vitamin sellers, other supplement sellers and so on. People going to a site like yours are customers for other things as well besides noots.

[doug123]

If this is where the community wishes to focus its attention, so be it. I don't think anyone could possibly be more pleased with discussions on testing nootropics that myself.

I find it refreshing that I get to be the one playing devil's advocate in such a topic. Back in the old days, it seemed I was among the only ones concerned about purity of nootropic and life-extension type supplements.

I don't think it's particularly fair to the companies that don't get their products tested by Zoolander. Especially if you plan on testing stuff like Piracetam, which should come out higher in purity (on average) due to the fact it's been around for over 30 years. The results from such tests could have a significant benefit to the companies in question from all this free publicity. Can't I submit a sample?

Peace.

[xanadu]

See what I mean, zoo?

[jaydfox]

In uni's case I would wonder if he is being on better behavior now then before (or maybe he is so arrogant that he would not bother being on good behaviour).

Actually, based on my many experiences with Steve (on the phone, possibly in the forum as uniquenutrition) and Edward (as LifeMirage, etc.), I think they are both more than arrogant enough to have not changed their behavior one bit. I'm not saying that haven't changed their behavior, but I'm certain they are both arrogant enough to think they can continue to bluff their way through any situation.

[theone999]

Um could you bring up to speed please? I've ordered Piracetam from Unique Nutrition, 3 bottles actually since it costs the same as 2 bottles shipped separately. Now i see this thread... So is the stuff not safe or something? The expire date is Feb 09.

[scottl]

If you create a website you'll obviously need to deal with cyberattacks from you know who.

[Brainbox]

This proposed testing is not a legal procedure. The idea is to show that the testing was done carefully and properly. People want to know the samples tested came from the vendor mentioned but it all comes down to believing or not believing zoolander. Those who don't want to believe, don't have to. Zoo will become the Consumer's Reports and Ralph Nader of the nootropic world all rolled into one. What may happen is others will later copy this and set up their own websites with test results.

I suppose you're right. Maybe I'm just a bit to serious about it. It's not that I distrust zoolander, but it might be better to be on the formal side with all this to persuade sceptical individuals in taking all this very serious. And to avoid making mistakes in “deblinding” the testresults.

And I'll stick to my opnion that this would not be a good test to judge the performance of a supplier, especially if the results might come out OK.

Well, anyway, I do completely agree with you that this sets a very good trend.

[xanadu]

The products from UN are probably as good as any you'll find on the net. I've seen no complaints about the quality of his stuff. When zoolander does his tests, we can stop saying "probably". The president of UN was friends with someone who came under attack and was subsequently banned from this site. For that reason, UN gets some flack sent it's way

brainbox wrote:

"it might be better to be on the formal side with all this to persuade sceptical individuals in taking all this very serious"

Nothing wrong with being formal but it still just comes down to whether you trust zoo or not. His credibility will be what keeps the thing going. As time goes on, his results will speak for themselves. Yes, attacks are possible but it isn't that easy to bring down a website. If your host is a large and established company, they will have security in place. It's when you have posting on a board, aliases and other stuff that more openings appear for hackers to exploit. A text only site is a lot harder to hack into. I'm not saying it can't be done but I ran a website for years without a hack and there were people with a motive to hack it. No, I wasn't selling anything.

[jaydfox]

The president of UN was friends with someone who came under attack and was subsequently banned from this site. For that reason, UN gets some flack sent it's way

I love how you make the association sound innocent, as if the "only" connection between Steve Sliwa and LifeMirage was that they were "friends". As a matter of fact, Steve Sliwa claims to be the president of a company formerly (and possibly currently) owned by Edward Younan, a.k.a. LifeMirage. They aren't just friends, they're business partners. There's nothing casual or innocent about their association with each other.

UN gets flak sent its way for a damn good reason. I'm not saying this to you specifically, because you made clear two months ago that you don't want to listen to reason, but I do want to make this clear to anyone else reading this thread. I can't say anything regarding the quality of UN's products, but I can authoritatively state things about their management.

Of course, a lot of nootropics users could care less about a company's management, as long as the product is good. So I'm curious to see the results of zoo's tests. As shady a business as UN is running, I wouldn't be surprised if they at least had the sense to sell high quality products, and if so, yay for the consumer.