84 replies to this topic

[doug123]

The problem is that you have a consumer doing testing.  If things are ordered by a lab and shipped directly from supplier to lab, then you have a lot better ground to stand on.  Trust me, I've been through this to many times.  Once a person touches it, outside of a fully accredited, then you're just asking to have your ass handed to you in court.

His location makes no difference.  The transaction happened here.  If anything, it would be an even LARGER pain in the butt to do.  Just my thoughts.

Is there a lab within the US that has the piracetam standard?  I'm not currently aware of one.  I'll gladly do my own testing and publish the results.  With no prior standard testing done, it isn't like I have a super secret sample that I can send in place of the material I ship out on a daily basis with.

You don't necessarily need a lab with the standard. Sigma Aldrich has standards for pretty much everything. If they don't have it, they can probably tell you where to get it. You can always request a test and submit the standard yourself, which I would suggest doing to make sure it's done right.

Analytical Labs in Anaheim will do an HPLC (and give you the printouts so you know they actually did the work...) and tell you methodologies too. Last time I checked they said would do an HPLC for $200 -- but that was last year, when that lab wouldn't even HPLC nootropic products because they thought they might be illegal (or maybe because I said I wanted them tested like pharma "drugs"). Oh, and they take up to THREE WEEKS to deliver results sometimes...

Sigma currently has two standards available, one is a German drug for animal use, and might be the better standard after all -- I don't think the Germans would want anything other than the best for their domesticated animals. I don't know many folks who feed their dogs Piracetam, but even man's best friend might want an IQ improvement... However, FDA might have a different view on this...

1. VETRANAL®, analytical standard (Riedel-de Haën)
http://www.sigmaaldr...il/RIEDEL/33895

2. P5295 Sigma Piracetam
http://www.sigmaaldr...ail/SIGMA/P5295

Peace out.

[doug123]

From reading the posts above its appears that I need to tread with caution.

For the record, I have no grudge or any associations with supplement companies or individuals involved with supplement companies. There are members here at this forum who have purchased product from particular companies. As a result of recent events, these members have concerns about the quality of the product that they purchased. I am simply offering a means by which they can independently test the product.

To avoid bias, I will not be testing the product myself. I will be contracting someone to test the product. The test with most likely involve HPLC and perhaps GC.

I need to look into the whole scenario at little further. One thing is for sure......I need to have my base covered. Hence, this may take some time

Losing chain of custody would create a BIG problem. Also: how was the product stored? Was it ever subjected to extremely high temps considering you are an Aussie and the product was shipped internationally? That alone might degrade the purity. Is the chemist an expert at HPLC interpretation? What analytical standard will you be using? And who knows how much cash some competitors might pay to discredit Mike or Edward? I am not implying anything except for the potential for more bad vibes and negativity.

These (and other) kinds of issues can arise; and they can only cause us all more drama; and after our last...identity crisis...we all would like to focus on a positive future. It looks like the problems at hand are going to be solved. I got to do my fvking homework.

[zoolander]

I will keep all these questions in mind

[Mike M]

How would someone sue zoolander anyway? They first have to find out his true name, and address. Then, they have to be able to prove that is the person who said the things they are suing about. This illustrates one good reason to not give out your name or personal info on the net. Use a proxy all the time and a firewall.

Zoolander does test at Lab X. Zoolander post bad result from company Y. Company Y gets lawyer. Lawyer contacts Lab X to get all information about Zoolander. By law, they'll have to give him all info. Company Y doesn't have many customers in AU, so he looks at who ordered product Z and lives in AU, probably a small list. If you think his personal info couldn't be gotten, you're sadly mistaken.

I can give my opinion anytime i want with no fear of lawsuits and so can zoo. This is a free country and the only grounds i could see for a suit here would be libel. To prove libel, you would have to prove the person lied, acted in malice or acted in a reckless manner disregarding the truth. You basicly have to prove they lied, not that the lab messed up or that the sample was old. A few disclaimers would reduce the likelyhood of even that holding up.

If you think a disclaimer means anything, go ask Matt Palada. These disclaimers about "research chemicals" are worthless and mean nothing. Just like a disclaimer in this manner would mean nothing. Maybe there was a part you missed in my previous post. I was sued for a test I didn't have anything to do with. If the lab screwed up, you can still be held responsible on a personal level.

I'd like to see someone sue me for anything i've said on this board. It was all my honest opinion and even if I was wrong, who are you going to sue? Zoo, don't let anyone bully you or push you around.

I'm not bullying anyone around. I'm stating facts. I've done more testing than anyone on this board. I've been involved with more lawsuits than anyone on this board. That being said, who do you think is more qualified to speak on this subject?

If the lawsuit fails, there is the possibility of receiving damages from the person who sued you if it is determined that the suit was frivilous and without merit.

Yes, I foolishly thought that rule would apply to me when I had a lawsuit in CA. This was the case where I didn't even do the test. Obviously it was BS. Yet, it still didn't happen. So a test I had nothing to do with still cost me 6k bucks to deal with.

[doug123]

I'm sure we could all bring our lawyers here, our test results, transcripts from lawsuits of the past, for comparison purposes to see who has "the most" of this or that, but I don't see how talking about these issues is particularly relevant or going to bring a satisfactory closure to this topic. Peace.

[doug123]

I came back to make perfectly clear that I think it is not going to help anything by testing and posting assay results from company's products besides the company selling that product -- that will only create potential for hostility and anger. If you are a registered independent testing agency like consumerlab.com, that is a different story.

It's a fairly intuitive proposition for us vendors to understand the incentive to provide assurances of quality of the products we sell you that you intend to ingest in hopes of improved cognition of a happier and healthier life. This is not a requirement for those of us selling these products in the USA. If we chose to have a perfectly safe market, prices would be ten times what they are now -- like they are in the EU countries. There is some benefit from not having this market regulated. However, it's a good idea to be aware of the implications. Peace.

[xanadu]

BN wrote:

"Zoolander does test at Lab X. Zoolander post bad result from company Y. Company Y gets lawyer. Lawyer contacts Lab X to get all information about Zoolander. By law, they'll have to give him all info. Company Y doesn't have many customers in AU, so he looks at who ordered product Z and lives in AU, probably a small list."

If a judge orders the company to turn over the name of the person who paid for the test, then and only then they will have to comply. It's not automatic. Zoo could arrange to be anon when paying for the test, perhaps have someone else pay for it or send an anon international money order or even cash. You forget that papers must be served on zoo personally. That is going to cost major money since he is in oz. If he refuses to sign for anything, a private detective may have to be hired at a cost of thousands of dollars. And that's if they find who he is.

"I was sued for a test I didn't have anything to do with. If the lab screwed up, you can still be held responsible on a personal level."

Anyone can sue with or without solid grounds. I take it the suit was unsuccessful? If the lab screwed up, it is not your responsibility unless you acted in a reckless manner.

"I'm not bullying anyone around. I'm stating facts."

No one is saying you are doing the bullying. We are talking about a hypothetical lawsuit by a manufacturor who didn't like the results.

"QUOTE
If the lawsuit fails, there is the possibility of receiving damages from the person who sued you if it is determined that the suit was frivilous and without merit."

"Yes, I foolishly thought that rule would apply to me when I had a lawsuit in CA. This was the case where I didn't even do the test. Obviously it was BS. Yet, it still didn't happen. So a test I had nothing to do with still cost me 6k bucks to deal with."

So the suit failed but you were unable to collect costs from the plaintif. That happens sometimes. On the other hand, there were lawsuits filed against a mining company a few years ago in which miners who had come down with black lung disease sued the company. They lost and the judge ordered them to pay the legal costs of the mining company. You would not think suing for lung disease would be considered a frivilous lawsuit since the fact they were ill was never disputed. Despite that, they were ordered to pay over $100,000 each for the company's legal costs.

For someone to sue zoolander, they would first have to find who he is and where he lives. That alone could cost well over $10,000 or be impossible. I doubt the judge will order the testing company to turn over the name of the tester though it's possible. Normally, they do that after the suit is filed. To file, you need the name of the defendant. Zoo can avoid that easily by taking a few precautions. The person who sues would have to fork out tens of thousands of dollars just to hire a lawyer and do the ground work to get the suit filed and served on zoo. Does zoo have any money to make it all worth while? No one knows. No lawyer in his right mind would take a case like that without lots of money in advance plus there is a chance the person who sues could be ordered to pay zoo's costs.

BN, you are correct in what you say, it is possible zoo could be sued. I'm just pointing out that the chances of that are close to zero under the circumstances. You are easy to find and own a prosperous company. Which would a greedy plaintif choose to sue, an easy to find defendant with lots of money or an anon person in another country who may turn out to be a destitute student?

[eternaltraveler]

Zoolander does test at Lab X. Zoolander post bad result from company Y. Company Y gets lawyer. Lawyer contacts Lab X to get all information about Zoolander. By law, they'll have to give him all info. Company Y doesn't have many customers in AU, so he looks at who ordered product Z and lives in AU, probably a small list. If you think his personal info couldn't be gotten, you're sadly mistaken.

the lawsuit would have to be filed in Australia for there to be a chance of getting anything out of Zoolander or anyone else. Some podunk court in the US does not have world reaching jurisdiction. So unless Zoolander has sizeable assets in the states he likely has nothing to worry about.

[Brainbox]

Trying to be devils advocate:

Looking at the statistical perspective, wouldn’t it be very difficult to provide results that have a sufficient level of confidence? Sufficient sample size, lab equipment or analysis failures, etc.?

Personally, I would not use suppliers that are only marginally creditable by reading internet information and other sources of information. I do not need tests for this. Rumour is sufficient for me and the only practical possible way.

Or looked at it from the general perspective, it’s simply not economically feasible to test a lot of products (and companies) in a statistical sound way.

Do we want to copy the FDA? We will probably end up with the same issues the FDA has to deal with in their safety assessments and the inevitable uncertainties that come with it. I do not generally sympathize with organisations like the FDA, but credit should be given to them that they need to find balanced ways in handling statistical uncertainties. In that, being on the safe side, they produce the viewpoints these organisations are “ famous” of having.

Testers, beware of the FDA syndrome….


[lol]

[zoolander]

So unless Zoolander has sizeable assets in the states he likely has nothing to worry about.

I don't even have sizable assest in Australia. [lol]

I am not afraid of people finding out who I am. I thought that was pretty obvious.

here is my business card



I can also be contacted at the Derek Zoolander School for kids who can't read good and on weekends at the Derek Zoolander University for Male models.

[doug123]

Zoolander: I ask again for you to please reconsider not posting test results of other companies' products online without their explicit consent. There is protocol for testing your own products, and another protocol for testing other companies' products. Consumerlab.com knows them. If you want to test other companies products, please consider working with them.

Once the product left wherever you purchased it from and you opened it, there is the possibility of adulteration. Plus, the fact that your identity is unknown also causes a significant problem with the credibility of the result and the impact of the action could seriously bring into question your motivation.

I am not saying anything bad about you specifically or trying to be offensive, but facts: I just barely know you except from an Internet forum, and I don't know of anyone else who I know who knows you personally.

If you want to be testing other companies' products and posting the results publically, the least you need to do is make your identity known. The few of us who make our identities public are at a disadvantage for credibility.

Peace.

[Brainbox]

You are saying testing is OK, provided that the general public doesn’t become aware of the plain details? You ask the testers to participate with the suppliers?

Hmmm, what is the biggest issue some of us have with the viewpoints of the FDA? That they play along with the pharmaceutical industry?

Like I said, this road of independent testing leads to lots of “political” issues….. It’s impossible to do it on statistical correct way on a low budget. Please refer to the theory of statistics, especially the confidence level parts…

I'm all for independant testing, but lets be realistic regarding our small budget capabilities!

We could start an initiative to raise funds for independant testing though...

[bl:)]

Edited by brainbox, 26 May 2006 - 09:08 AM.

[eternaltraveler]

it really bothers me that the suppliers here are so against the concept of testing. Makes me want to do some testing of my own.

[eternaltraveler]

Please test my products so i don't have to spend money on testing wink.gif (i'm serious)

[lol]

[xanadu]

elrond wrote:

"the lawsuit would have to be filed in Australia for there to be a chance of getting anything out of Zoolander or anyone else. Some podunk court in the US does not have world reaching jurisdiction. So unless Zoolander has sizeable assets in the states he likely has nothing to worry about."

You have a good point although it is possible to sue someone living in australia in USA courts. The alleged wrong would have to occur in the USA for American courts to have jurisdiction. With things on the internet, it is really not clear where jurisdiction lies. That is an area still evolving in many cases. To sue zoo, the plaintif would have to serve papers on him where he happens to be. Unless zoo can be persuaded to come to the states, the legal papers would have to be flown to Australia and served there. There is no way to force him to appear in an American court but if he is served, then the plaintif could get a judgement in a court here. If the defendant has no assets in the states, it gets really complicated. You would have to ask an Australian court to accept the American judgement and to put a lien on or to seize his assets over there. I have no idea if that can be done or not but that's what it would take. Suing him over there would solve a lot of those problems but then the plaintif would have to fly over and live there as long as it took for the suit to be resolved. No guarantee on winning either. And then if the defendant has no assets to be siezed, even winning means nothing.

Yes, it is odd how the distributors seem very anxious that zoo not perform his tests. I believe he has struck a nerve. Zoo may become the consumer's reports of the nootropic world. Manufacturors and distributors may offer him lavish bribes to influence his results. If zoo posts a photo of his new mercedes, we will know something is up. Seriously though, it would be great to get an outside point of view on things.

[doug123]

The community should weigh in (perhaps by vote?) on the question of bias. Other communities should be polled as well. Such an action might create serious tension, so you want as objective a result as possible.

It is not going to foster a respectful environment here by lacking professionalism. Having anonymous parties on the Internet posting results that might be damaging to a company's reputation should be out of the question --without consent of the company.

Also: evading laws to advance an issue might be unfair leveraging. The reason the identity of the individual performing the action is of particular importance is due to the potential impact of the action on this and other communities. If we don't have a clear chain of custody, that is also questionable. That is a major loss to the value of the result as well.

In the past, I have tested and posted publicly results of other companies products -- and my own. I did so with the consent of the business owner, however.

Nootropics are perfectly legal in several states, so we vendors can contract with FDA registered (and accountable) labs to bottle and encapsulate for us now. Back when I was selling nootropics I literally thought they were grey area with respect to legality and no FDA registered labs would touch something that was a white powder imported from China they had never heard of. I was surprised to find that nootropics are perfectly legal in the State of California to be sold as dietary supplement products.

Ideally, businesses contract with well established FDA registered, cGMP facilities to initially receive the raw material (i.e. you don't have your supplier ship it directly to your apt. ), then that facility sends a sample of the product to be bottled to the independent testing facility of your choice (assuming your company does not have their own HPLCs and analytical chemists on hand). The laboratory that receives the sample then records the lot number and institutes their standard laboratory procedures (SOPs -- which include keeping detailed records) for testing.

Through sample retention, validated and traceable testing methodologies and analytical standards, tying the sample down to the finished product and through lot numbers on finished product -- all that can help save your ass -- even if a customer claims to have a bottle of your product with a known contaminant (obviously there are more details depending on the case). Also it helps to work with FDA registered testing and bottling facilities whose signatures (and testimony, if necessary) mean something in a court of law -- so also ensure that the lab you work with will stand behind their results and are aware of the legal implications of the service you are paying them to perform.

But in this case, we know nothing of the laboratory, skills of the individual testing the product (or even his or her identity!), or whether it might have been adulterated due to improper handling or storage of the product.

I am not suggesting to not test dietary supplements. I am suggesting making sure you get a pure product before you buy it. It's a dietary supplement and it's traded in the USA, so it's just as likely to spoil as anything else you might consider consuming. And considering these "food products" are often imported from international sources and are traded as commodities in several cases, one should have considered the implications before buying the cheapest widget available on the Internet.

Peace.

[jaydfox]

As long as we're on the topic of statistically significant results, what's the big hangup?

Granted, zoo only has one or two or three bottles of the stuff to test. That's not a very significant test set of UNI's stuff. Maybe he gets a reading of 2% lead? Of course, it's possible that that one bottle of stuff from UNI was the "only" bottle to be so heavily contaminated. But as far as basic statistics goes, one bottle picked at random is enough to establish a 95% chance that at least 1 out of 20 bottles of UNI's stuff will be so heavily contaminated, and that's frightening enough to speak for itself. Sure, there's that 5% chance that it was just a fluke, that the real contamination rate is maybe only 1 in 10,000.... And zoo got that 1 out of 10,000? What are the odds of that?

As for the statistical significance of the tests themselves: how many tests do you think you could run on a single bottle? A hundred? A thousand? There's no lack of testable material, and no lack of a control substance to test against, so zoo could establish to p < 0.001 that whatever contaminant levels or impurity levels he finds are in fact quite statistically significant. He could just take 20 samples from the one bottle (or 20 each from the three bottles), and then 20 samples from the control substance, and voila, statistical significance. Actually, probably not even 20 samples would be needed, maybe only 5-10 per test group.

[eternaltraveler]

It is not going to foster a respectful environment here by lacking professionalism. Having anonymous parties on the Internet posting results that might be damaging to a company's reputation should be out of the question --without consent of the company.

The company has absolutely no right whatsoever to have any say on whether their products are tested or not. They gave all that consent simply by selling this or that substance.

[Mike M]

The company has absolutely no right whatsoever to have any say on whether their products are tested or not. They gave all that consent simply by selling this or that substance.

I agree with you 100%. However, if the results are being made public on the internet, then I don't think it is to much to ask to make sure proper testing procedures were followed.

[doug123]

Okay, I don't want anyone thinking I am somehow involved.

Mike and I have had our issues in the past, and I would like to keep them in the past as I think he's a cooler dude than I took him for at first -- and I have acted less than professional at times, and am trying to conduct myself in a more...orderly fashion. And I have asked for feedback from folks like Scott (who I have had disagreements with in the past based on my silliness) who I have learned to respect as a pretty level headed dude. But I know who these people are, they are not anonymous, so their credibility and opinions on the issue are important.

It is interesting that this is suddenly an issue for many of you. As I recall some being quite vocal on this issue now were quite...cynical when I was ranting on this -- yes, I was a bit...excessive...and it might have come across as...fanatical...and I was acting like a crazy person...

It looks like the issues we consider important are being addressed, I think it's better we focus on a positive future.

[xanadu]

nootropikamil wrote:

"Ideally, businesses contract with well established FDA registered, cGMP facilities to initially receive the raw material (i.e. you don't have your supplier ship it directly to your apt. wink.gif ), then that facility sends a sample of the product to be bottled to the independent testing facility of your choice"

I don't agree with this part. If the company was using adulterated products and feared being discovered, it would be easy to send a known sample that they purchased from a competitor and represent it as their own. Using the comparison to consumer's reports, they would not allow the sellers to pick out the merchandise to be tested because it gives an obvious opening to do hanky panky. Test the stuff that they send out to Joe Nobody.

As for testing procedures, most of that would be done by the lab. The person arranging the test, zoo for example, would state how he aquired the samples and the procedures he followed on his end. People reading his report could keep that in mind and the possibility that he screwed up at some point. You speak of anonymous people but zoo has voluntarily shed his anonymity giving him the same status as others that have been mentioned.

Don't sweat it Adam, no one is going to worry too much if your stuff is only 98% pure. That might be better than the other's tested. As for lead, come on. None of the batches are going to show significant amounts of lead beyond trace amounts found everywhere like 1/1000 of 1% or less. Just my opinion but watch and see.

[eternaltraveler]

for the record I expect older samples to have degraded to some degree, and thus not be ultra pure. What we are looking for is gross misrepresentation and contaminates

[doug123]

Now, in a fair world, most folks don't manage to get shut down by a government agency, get their products embargoed, and walk away with no bruises except for some exceedingly intoxicated and embarrassing behavior that I now have to be accountable for. If anyone is concerned that products returned to me by the California Dept. of Health may be impure, they have my open invitation to test all the products I sell.

I have already tested the products that I imported from China; only for a heavy metal and MP assay, as at that time that was all I could afford -- as at that time only IBC labs would do the tests for me at $350 each. What Chinese imports I do have left from that encounter are currently few -- so if you desire to test the "embargoed batch" (limited edition!) you better buy quick. Maybe I will make a special "testing sale" price. Just let me know what lab you will be using to be performing the assay, and I will ask Funk to send it right out.

Peace out.

Edited by nootropikamil, 27 May 2006 - 01:22 AM.

[doug123]

I know and trust both Harold and Justin. Just please keep me out of it. I don't want any hostility between me and any other companies.

[jaydfox]

for the record I expect older samples to have degraded to some degree, and thus not be ultra pure.  What we are looking for is gross misrepresentation and contaminates

This is an important point. If the stuff comes back 96% pure and the other 4% is totally safe/inert filler, I'll be sure to make fun of UNI, but it's not going to hurt their business much. On the other hand, a reading of 88% pure, or a contamination level 10 times the accepted level in the noots community (is there such a level?), will reflect very badly on them.

[zoolander]

Here is my scenario:
I bought the substances and after reading a little became concerned about the quality of these substances. i.e heavy metal contamination and purity

So I decide to test the items using an independant lab. I decide to test these items for my own piece of mind.

I will not make the results public but am open to sending the results to people that I know who have purchased the same items. This will be out of concern for their health and to give them some piece of mind.

It does concern me that so many vendors are trying to put me off testing the items.

How do you think I will feel if I get the items tested and find that they are contaminated with lead. I have been taking these items. If I find contaminants in any of the items I will be contacting the appropriate authorities and doing what I can to have these vendors shut down. Now that's what you call justice. Not justice related to protecting a shonky business that may perhaps sell contaminated substances to innocent people. Justice related to maintaining good business practice. A business that practices responsibly and when you are talking about supplement companies, we are talking about a responsibility related to peoples lives. Peoples health. I will not stand for any companies or anyone who profits from taking advantage of people who simply wish for a healthy lifestyle.

This is in no way a personal vendetta against any company or person. This is my responsiblity as a person. My responsibility as a compassionate person who cares for others.

When I do these tests I will be doing my best to assure that they are done correctly.

Finally, I have already achieved one thing. I have vendors on the back foot. I have vendors thinking that their substances could and can be tested by competent individuals. They will never know. Even though I am in Australia there is nothing to say that I can't ask one of the 3481 members here from all over the world to send me a sample.

[lol]

[jaydfox]

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?