• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo

Which company has the best piracetam from your exp


  • Please log in to reply
37 replies to this topic

#1 nomi

  • Guest
  • 45 posts
  • 0

Posted 08 March 2006 - 09:29 PM


http://www.imminst.o...f=198&t=9626&s=

LINK ^

thanks

:)

#2 FunkOdyssey

  • Guest
  • 3,443 posts
  • 166
  • Location:Manchester, CT USA

Posted 08 March 2006 - 09:32 PM

The piracetam that I would be most likely to trust right now would be the Relentless Improvement brand, because they perform independent testing and are appropriately anal about quality. Just my personal opinion.

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Adverts help to support LongeCity's non-profit work. To go ad-free join as Member.

#3 drmz

  • Guest
  • 574 posts
  • 10
  • Location:netherlands

Posted 09 March 2006 - 02:48 PM

I buy my piracetam at www.1fast400.com. Although it's bulk powder, i thrust it. Consumed over 1.4 KG. Cheap, fast delivery.......
If you want to know the source then buy at relentless improvement. Bulk is cheaper, but usually the (exact) source is unknown

#4 nomi

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 45 posts
  • 0

Posted 09 March 2006 - 08:26 PM

thanks guys

#5 ajnast4r

  • Guest, F@H
  • 3,925 posts
  • 147
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 09 March 2006 - 11:25 PM

relentlessimprovement.com without a doubt.

find another company that has 3rd party testing done

#6 vamlov

  • Guest
  • 4 posts
  • 0

Posted 10 March 2006 - 12:32 AM

What do you think about independent www.nootropica.com? They do independent testing and quality avaliation. Great for international clients, but I never tasted so bitter aniracetam, it seems like acid through my esophagus. Adding milk sugar shake, turned aniracetam tottaly soluble, but only with abundant sugar can I drink it.

#7 drmz

  • Guest
  • 574 posts
  • 10
  • Location:netherlands

Posted 10 March 2006 - 07:03 AM

What do you think about independent www.nootropica.com? They do independent testing and quality avaliation. Great for international clients, but I never tasted so bitter aniracetam, it seems like acid through my esophagus. Adding milk sugar shake, turned aniracetam tottaly soluble, but only with abundant sugar can I drink it.


Humz my aniracetam isn't so bitter .....or are you taking it by the kg ?

I would stay at relentless for proved quality piracetam or use 1fast400 for cheap bulk powder

Edited by drmz, 10 March 2006 - 11:05 AM.


#8 nomi

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 45 posts
  • 0

Posted 10 March 2006 - 02:13 PM

I'll just experiment on myself and see what i come out with.

lol

#9 rbutinar

  • Guest
  • 4 posts
  • 0

Posted 12 March 2006 - 12:17 AM

I usually buy piracteam and choline from NUBRAIN STORE (http://nubrain.zoovy.com/).
I choosed it because they are quite cheap compared to others but mainly because they are shipping to Italy quickly and without extra formalities.
I am quite happy for the service, but I am not in the position to judge the quality of the products compared to the one of other suppliers: does anybody has references on this company?

#10 nomi

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 45 posts
  • 0

Posted 12 March 2006 - 02:00 AM

^

never heard of it.

#11 doug123

  • Guest
  • 2,424 posts
  • -1
  • Location:Nowhere

Posted 13 August 2006 - 06:22 AM

The only company that performs rigorous testing at FDA registered independent testing facilities on their Piracetam at this time is Relentless Improvement (I'd be pleased to see some evidence to suggest otherwise).

For newbies:

What is HPLC and how to learn about it? http://www.pharm.uky.../hplcmytry.html

What is USP heavy metals? http://www.usp.org/U...f/2404/a02.html

Are microbiological profiles required for production of drugs for human use in the USA? http://microbiol.org...echnol.2001.pdf

Posted Image

Posted Image

I'm tired of bumping.

#12 Ghostrider

  • Guest
  • 1,996 posts
  • 56
  • Location:USA

Posted 13 August 2006 - 06:26 AM

I purchased Piracetam from Relentless Improvement. They are fast and ship from California (Livermore). I also purchased from somewhere else, but cannot tell the difference between the two products in terms of cognitive enhancement. Both appear to do nothing for me, aside from some transitory placebo effects at the beginning of my experimentation.

#13 doug123

  • Guest
  • 2,424 posts
  • -1
  • Location:Nowhere

Posted 13 August 2006 - 06:30 AM

It's the same for me: I don't notice a thing from Piracetam (or other racetams for that matter). I think they are more effective at preventing cognitive impairment from happening than inducing a more intelligent state. At this time, I'd place my bets on modafinil and perhaps, in particular, the R isomer of modafinil...which I'd bet will be available on the market quite soon:

http://phx.corporate...4043&highlight=

I wish I had a stake in modafinil!

I take a couple of racetams and think they do something...but compared to modafinil and other commonly used agents used to treat ADD/ADHD, they wouldn't register on the chart of effectiveness. That's my opinion.

#14 doug123

  • Guest
  • 2,424 posts
  • -1
  • Location:Nowhere

Posted 14 August 2006 - 11:16 PM

I purchased Piracetam from Relentless Improvement.  They are fast and ship from California (Livermore).  I also purchased from somewhere else, but cannot tell the difference between the two products in terms of cognitive enhancement.  Both appear to do nothing for me, aside from some transitory placebo effects at the beginning of my experimentation.


Well: the truth is, if you don't see the COA for any product, it's highly likely your supplier is using the cheapest source available and imports from Chinese chemical factories that produce "Windex," "Tilex," etc. That's where most nootropics are produced these days. Most suppliers hide their COAs for these products as they can't pretend to perform independent testing without disclosing the lab that performs this testing for them...and we can always call that lab to double check they aren't just spitting out hot air.

Check the message on COAs for such products; the only way to ensure you get a high quality product is to check the COA and confirm the assay was performed at a reputable testing facility (hopefully it's FDA registered!). If there is no company name on the COA, who knows where it was made, how pure it is, etc.

Here is what is imprinted on COAs these days (check the message):

Posted Image

I don't like reading that a COA is provided for "informational purposes only..." especially with all of the contaminated supplements going around the USA. Supplements that aren't tested as drugs can be dangerous:

Making Sense of GMPs
09/01/2000

The History of GMPs for Dietary Supplements

The Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA) authorized but did not require the FDA to adopt new federal regulations for GMPs for dietary supplements. Under DSHEA, the FDA can issue GMP regulations for dietary supplements that are modeled after food GMPs. A number of organizations developed a model for the regulations and passed it to FDA in late 1995. The sponsors were the American Herbal Products Association (AHPA), the Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN), the National Nutritional Foods Association (NNFA) and the Utah Natural Products Alliance (UNPA).

"In DSHEA, Congress ordered FDA to model any specific GMPs for supplements on food GMPs," Ullman said. "The food GMPs [as opposed to pharmaceutical GMPs] had less rigorous steps to take against impurity--not every batch needs to be tested and record retention isn't as rigorous."


Lead is a commonly found contaminant that can drasically lower human IQ; even at low enough doses where it is considered "safe" (at or equal 10 µg per deciliter in blood).

Volume 348:1517-1526  April 17, 2003  Number 16
Intellectual Impairment in Children with Blood Lead Concentrations below 10 µg per Deciliter

Richard L. Canfield, Ph.D., Charles R. Henderson, Jr., M.A., Deborah A. Cory-Slechta, Ph.D., Christopher Cox, Ph.D., Todd A. Jusko, B.S., and Bruce P. Lanphear, M.D., M.P.H.
Background Despite dramatic declines in children's blood lead concentrations and a lowering of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's level of concern to 10 µg per deciliter (0.483 µmol per liter), little is known about children's neurobehavioral functioning at lead concentrations below this level.

Methods We measured blood lead concentrations in 172 children at 6, 12, 18, 24, 36, 48, and 60 months of age and administered the Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scale at the ages of 3 and 5 years. The relation between IQ and blood lead concentration was estimated with the use of linear and nonlinear mixed models, with adjustment for maternal IQ, quality of the home environment, and other potential confounders.

Results The blood lead concentration was inversely and significantly associated with IQ. In the linear model, each increase of 10 µg per deciliter in the lifetime average blood lead concentration was associated with a 4.6-point decrease in IQ (P=0.004), whereas for the subsample of 101 children whose maximal lead concentrations remained below 10 µg per deciliter, the change in IQ associated with a given change in lead concentration was greater. When estimated in a nonlinear model with the full sample, IQ declined by 7.4 points as lifetime average blood lead concentrations increased from 1 to 10 µg per deciliter.

Conclusions Blood lead concentrations, even those below 10 µg per deciliter, are inversely associated with children's IQ scores at three and five years of age, and associated declines in IQ are greater at these concentrations than at higher concentrations. These findings suggest that more U.S. children may be adversely affected by environmental lead than previously estimated.

Source Information

From the Division of Nutritional Sciences (R.L.C.) and the Department of Human Development (C.R.H.), College of Human Ecology, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.; the Departments of Environmental Medicine (D.A.C.-S.) and Biostatistics and Computational Biology (C.C.), University of Rochester School of Medicine, Rochester, N.Y.; the Division of Epidemiology, Statistics, and Prevention, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Bethesda, Md. (C.C.); the Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle (T.A.J.); and Cincinnati Children's Environmental Health Center, Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati (B.P.L.).

Address reprint requests to Dr. Canfield at the Division of Nutritional Sciences, College of Human Ecology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, or at rlc5@cornell.edu.


Contamination has been found in many "dietary supplement" products that are available at your local health food store.

From consumerlab.com:

http://www.consumerl...lts/ginseng.asp

Specific types of ginseng may be helpful in diabetes control, the prevention of respiratory infections, sexual enhancement and other uses. But ConsumerLab.com has found problems in many ginseng supplements over the years.In this newest Review, six products failed to pass testing due to lead contamination, lack of ingredient, or inadequate labeling. One product had less than 10% of its claimed amount of ginsenosides despite its "EXTRA STRENGTH" label.A major store brand product was contaminated with lead.

Seven products passed the testing, along with four products tested through ConsumerLab.com's certification program. And two products similar to products that passed are identified. Testing focused on Asian ginseng (Panax ginseng) (also called Korean or Chinese ginseng) and American ginseng (Panax quinquefolius).

Included in the report are Ginsana (Alan James Group, LLC), Imperial Elixir (GINCO International), Kinetana (Biogenesis Nutraceuticals, Inc), Royal King (Herba Natural Products Inc.), Hsu's Root to Health (Ginseng Enterprises, Inc.), Hi-Ener-G (Windmill™ Health Products) as well as products from by CVS Pharmacy, Paradise Herbs, Pharmanex, Puritan's Pride, Spring Valley, Vitamin World, Walgreens, Sundown, Swanson, ActionLabs, and TruNature.


Green tea and Selenium, and Lycopene supplements sold in the US also can't match their label claim or are otherwise contaminated as well:
http://www.consumerl...ne_selenium.asp

Certain foods and nutrients are associated with a reduced risk of cancer. Many of these are anti-oxidants, scavenging free radicals that can otherwise damage cells. Supplements containing three popular ingredients — green tea, lycopene or selenium — were purchased and tested. [See separate reports on this site for other ingredients used for cancer prevention: folate, garlic, isoflavones, vitamin C, vitamin D, and vitamin E.]

But problems were detected in three green tea products: Two were contaminated with lead and another contained only 71% of its claimed level of EGCG, a key compound in green tea. One selenium supplement contained only 38% of its ingredient.

Brands covered in the review include those from Bluebonnet, Canadian Sun, Country Life, GNC, Food Science of Vermont, Futurebiotics, Herbal Select, Jarrow, KAL, Life Extension, Metabolic Maintenance, Nature's Answer, Nature's Bounty, Pharmanex, Puritan's Pride, Schiff, Vitamin World, and Whole Foods.


And, most recently, CL.com's tests on Valerian root were quite alarming:

http://www.consumerl...ts/valerian.asp

In this Review, you'll get ConsumerLab's test results for 16 products. Eight products contained less key compounds than expected. One of these was also contaminated with lead while two other products had cadmium contamination. Results were confirmed in independent laboratories.


Other scientific research conducted on dietary supplement products sold in the USA:

From http://www.acsu.buff...etyefficacy.htm

A study of ginseng products found tremendous variability, with as little as 12% and as much as 328% of the active ingredient in the bottle, compared to the information on the label (Am J Clin Nutr. 2001. 73. 1101-1106).

A study of 59 Echinacea products from retail stores analyzed by thin layer chromotography showed that 6 contained no measurable Echinacea and only 9 of the 21 preparations labelled as standardized extracts actually contained in the sample the content listed on the label. Overall, the assay results were consistent with the labelled content in only 31 of the59 preparations (Arch Intern Med. 2003. 163. 699-704).

When the FDA announced in 2003 a proposed rule to establish good manufacturing practices for supplements, the FDA cited data that 5 of 18 soy and/or red clover supplements contained only 50-80% of the quantity of isoflavones stated on the label, and 8 of 25 probiotic products contained less than 1% of the live bacteria claimed on the label.

Additional quality issues include contamination of some herbs with other botanicals, micro-organisms, microbial toxins, fumigating agents, pesticides, heavy metals, or prescription or over the counter drugs.

In 1998 the California Department of Health reported in a letter published in the New England Journal of Medicine that 32% of Asian patent medicines sold in that state contained undeclared pharmaceuticals or heavy metals, including ephedrine ( a stimulant), chlorpheniramine (an antihistamine), methyltestosterone (an anabolic steroid), phenacetin (a pain killer), lead, mercury, and arsenic (N Engl J Med. 1998. 339. 847).

A study in which 500 Asian patent medicines were screened for the presence of heavy metals and 134 drugs found that 10% were contaminated (Bull Environ Contam Toxicol. 2000. 65. 112-119).

A study in which all unique Ayurvedic herbal medicine products were purchased from all stores within 20 miles of Boston City Hall found that 14 of 70 products (20%) contained heavy metals and that if taken as recommended by the manufacturer, each of these 14 products could result in heavy metal intakes above published regulatory standards (JAMA. 2004. 292. 2868-2873).

Adulteration of imported Chinese dietary supplements sold in Japan is responsible for 622 cases of illness, 148 hospitalizations, and 3 deaths (Report of the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare. September 20, 2002).

A 2002 Bastyr University study of 20 probiotic supplements found that 16 contained bacteria not listed on the label, 6 contained organisms that can make people sick, and 4 contained no live organisms.

PC-SPES was removed from the market in 2002 after it was determined that it was adulterated with the prescription blood thinner, warfarin.

Consumer Reports (May 2004) and the “Dirty Dozen” unsafe herbs still readily available

·  “CONSUMER REPORTS has identified a dozen (supplements) that … are too dangerous to be on the market.  Yet they are.” Introductory paragraph in red ink.

·        Factors contributing to unsafe supplements on the market.

·        “ ‘The standards for demonstrating a supplement is hazardous are so high that it can take the FDA years to build a case,’ said Bruce Silverglade, legal director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a Washington D.C., consumer advocacy group”(pg. 12).

·        “The FDA’s supplement division is understaffed and underfunded, with about 60 people and a budget of only 10 million “dollars)…” (pp. 12-13).

·        “…Overwhelming opposition from Congress and industry forced it to back down” when the FDA first tried to regulate ephedra in 1997 (pg. 13).

·        The public assumes a greater degree of government regulation than exists – in a 2002 Harris Poll of 1010 adults, 59% of respondents believed that supplements must be approved by a government agency before they can be sold to the public, 68% thought the government requires warning labels on supplements with regard to potential dangers, and 55% thought that supplement manufacturers could not make safety claims without solid scientific support.



Once again, my favorite image:

Posted Image

#15 basho

  • Guest
  • 774 posts
  • 1
  • Location:oʎʞoʇ

Posted 15 August 2006 - 11:07 AM

How about Nootropil sold by QHI? Since its a name brand, is it safe to assume the quality is ok?

#16 psychenaut

  • Life Member
  • 153 posts
  • 2
  • Location:Reno NV

Posted 15 August 2006 - 08:34 PM

Without 3rd party quantification, it is risky to ASSUME anything about ANY product in today's marketplace.

That is why I test my products and publicly post the results. There was quite a stir a few years ago when many lots of a European pharmaceutical branded deprenyl was found to contain no active ingredient.

I personally know of a metric ton bulk supplier of lipoic acid (and many other substances) passing off (cheap) alpha-lipoic acid as r-lipoic acid (r-lipoic is the active form and much more expensive).

It is your body and brain- only you can decide the value of assured quality.

Cheers
Pete

#17 xanadu

  • Guest
  • 1,917 posts
  • 8

Posted 15 August 2006 - 08:37 PM

Where are the COA's for the over the counter products we use every day? Where are the COA's for the food we eat?

#18 doug123

  • Guest
  • 2,424 posts
  • -1
  • Location:Nowhere

Posted 15 August 2006 - 10:13 PM

How about Nootropil sold by QHI?  Since its a name brand, is it safe to assume the quality is ok?


QHI sells UCB (the original patent holder) Piracetam which is produced in Europe using DRUG GMPs, not FOOD GMPs.

It is definitely safe and legit. However, compared to Relentless's brand, the price is a bit high. If Pete did not perform extensive independent analysis on his Piracetam (ie HPLC, Heavy metals, microbiological profiles), I would probably not purchase it considering the outrageously high amount of contamination in the US supplement market.

#19 doug123

  • Guest
  • 2,424 posts
  • -1
  • Location:Nowhere

Posted 17 August 2006 - 05:50 AM

When I made the statement: "the price is a bit high" comparing QHI and Relentless that is an understatement. I should have said, the price is twice as high from QHI, and I would be pretty much totally correct.

$28.95 for 180 800mg capsules from Relentless Improvement. That is about 0.16 cents per 800mg pill. That's the best deal I can find on QUALITY encapsulated Piracetam.

Link below:
https://secure7.next...et=products.asp

UCB Piracetam from QHI (with QHI, you would have to send in a disclaimer form first before they can do business with you, not to mention...you would have to import it from Europe -- which is a hassle, and takes about 14 days to get delivered, and pay $15 for shipping) cost $18.1144 USD (at the current exchange rate in Euros) for 60 800mg tablets. That comes down to about 0.30 cents per 800mg pill. http://qhi.co.uk/list.asp?r=490

Biogenesis is a bit more expensive at $20.85 for 60 800mg pills; or about 0.35 per 800 mg pill. http://www.biogenesi...i-piracetam.asp (you still have to import from a European country and pay $15 for shipping)

#20 doug123

  • Guest
  • 2,424 posts
  • -1
  • Location:Nowhere

Posted 21 September 2006 - 10:46 PM

Here is a topic worth a look:

what supplement manufacturers do you use?
http://www.imminst.o...&f=6&t=12448&s=

#21 doug123

  • Guest
  • 2,424 posts
  • -1
  • Location:Nowhere

Posted 10 October 2006 - 01:30 AM

*cough*

Once again, the only company I know of that performs *independent* testing (at this time) on their products for purity in HPLC, heavy metals, and microbiological content is Relentless Improvement. I've seen other companies do an HPLC assay but cut corners with heavy metals and microbiological content... ;)

I'd be pleased to see any evidence to suggest otherwise. [wis]

I suggest folks to join Consumerlab.com and use vendors that pass their tests.

#22 cellfighter

  • Guest
  • 97 posts
  • -0

Posted 14 October 2006 - 06:51 PM

Most companies test in house (Jarrow Formulas, Life Extension Foundation, AOR, etc) and seem fine to me. Unless anyone can offer proof of concern (which I have never seen anyone post regarding a finished product) I think the 3rd party testing seems like hype to sell products. Otherwise you're claiming nearly 90% of dietary supplements to be selling unsafe products. Which is just BS.

Even your own company (which is currently "closed until further notice due to restructuring") relies solely on the manufacturers COA is a serious concern. You don’t seem to test at your “FDA registered, cGMP facility” for heavy metals, bacteria, mold, purity, etc. If you do as any quality company does at the least and in house test your products, then I would strongly suggest posting them unless you have something to hide. If you don’t then like any quality company you should be able to at the least inform of our FDA facility # so people can confirm your “claims”.

As the owner of your company I expect you to answer these questions, otherwise you obviously are doing something wrong.

As an example to anyone of the process of making a dietary supplement and the safety checks that can be in place it is as follows:

1. Company A orders 10 kilograms of Green Tea from Sabinsa. Sabinsa supplies their COA.
2. Company A sends it to their plant and the company A tests to confirm it is: Green Tea (as match’s the COA’s description), heavy metals, and bacteria within FDA limits.
3. Company A produces the finished product and tests for: mg/g per cap/bottle, bacteria & heavy metals that may be present in the machinery.
4. Company A sends it out for 3rd party testing for purity, mg per cap, metals, and bacteria.


4 is optional but not needed if you are buying from a high quality supplier and he is using excellent raw materials. But only doing number 1 is blindly putting faith not science behind your products and last time I check ImmInst wasn’t a bunch of Catholics.


Just as an example Relentless Improvement does some testing but they are still incomplete and that gives me some caution. Why? Well.

1. He does not confirm mg per cap for Aniracetam and for the heavy metal testing he only does lead! I would prefer to see at least a 5 panel heavy metal test which is common with mainstream companies.

2. Centrophenoxine he does do a 5 panel heavy metal test but no mg per cap, and no material purity.

3. Idebenone no mg per cap, and no material purity.

4. Oxiracetam is nearly perfect (mg per cap, heavy metals, and bacteria) is an excellent example of how testing should be done. Only addition would be a purity test to be perfect.

5. Phenibut is pretty bad. No purity testing or mg per cap and I don't want any mercury in my system!

6. Piracetam is fine but needs a purity test. Why? Well if you had 80% purity tested Piracetam and put alot of it in a cap you could fit 805 mg of Piracetam but the rest could be chemicals.


7. Regarding Pramiracetam this one is funny to me as he claims his is purer than the original pharmacetical brand name Pramistar. Wow I did not know Chinese pramiracetam was purer than Italian pramiracetam. What a laugh. Also no testing to confirm mg per cap on this one.

8. While I could go on I think I've made my point.


No company is perfect mind you but when you start claiming everyone is selling crap with zero proof and saying this guy is the Only true safe tested source you better get all your facts straight. Seemingly you have little facts aside from the fact that this guy posts his coa's online which made it easy for you to find through google. If you are really interested about quality from different companies I would suggest contacting all of them, get as much information on their quality control standards as you can and post that here.

Just my 2 cents.

Edited by cellfighter, 14 October 2006 - 08:28 PM.


#23 doug123

  • Guest
  • 2,424 posts
  • -1
  • Location:Nowhere

Posted 15 October 2006 - 12:40 AM

Besides correcting misinformation, I'll also issue a quick "Troll Alert." The only way to deal with trolls is to limit your reaction to reminding others not to respond to trolls. [wis]

First, I tried to cover QC issues in this topic (check it out if you have a minute).

False information corrected:

Just as an example Relentless Improvement does some testing but they are still incomplete and that gives me some caution. Why? Well.

1. He does not confirm mg per cap for Aniracetam and for the heavy metal testing he only does lead! I would prefer to see at least a 5 panel heavy metal test which is common with mainstream companies.

2. Centrophenoxine he does do a 5 panel heavy metal test but no mg per cap, and no material purity.

3. Idebenone no mg per cap, and no material purity.

4. Oxiracetam is nearly perfect (mg per cap, heavy metals, and bacteria) is an excellent example of how testing should be done. Only addition would be a purity test to be perfect.

5. Phenibut is pretty bad. No purity testing or mg per cap and I don't want any mercury in my system!

6. Piracetam is fine but needs a purity test. Why? Well if you had 80% purity tested Piracetam and put alot of it in a cap you could fit 805 mg of Piracetam but the rest could be chemicals.


7. Regarding Pramiracetam this one is funny to me as he claims his is purer than the original pharmacetical brand name Pramistar. Wow I did not know Chinese pramiracetam was purer than Italian pramiracetam. What a laugh. Also no testing to confirm mg per cap on this one.

8. While I could go on I think I've made my point.


1. Aniracetam raw material was tested, not the finished product. Lead is the most commonly found contaminant which is why the emphasis is there. If the material is 99.55% pure, free of microbiological contamination, etc. -- and lead -- I wouldn't be too worried about other contamination. You mention "mainstream companies" yet can't cite a single counterexample.

2. Centrophenoxine: raw material was tested by HPLC, for heavy metal content, as well as microbiological content. Take a closer look: http://relentlessimp.../centro_coa.pdf

3. Idebenone: raw material was tested by HPLC, for heavy metals, and microbiological contamination. Put your glasses on and check http://relentlessimp...cs/ideb_coa.pdf

4. Oxiracetam is tested for purity in HPLC. Take a closer look (determined by HPLC). http://relentlessimp...docs/oxicoa.pdf

5. Uh, obviously you aren't up to date with your science, or didn't manage to finish high school. There is a little bit of every heavy metal in almost everything on this planet, dude. Even dirt has a little bit of mercury -- that's why we have set limits. If you want no mercury in your system, you'll probably die, kid. Regardless, at this time, this is the most rigourous independent testing of any company selling this compound in the entire world.

One of the organic forms, methylmercury, is the form of current toxicologic concern. Mercury can and does change its chemical form and move among different environmental media, with the global amount of mercury remaining the same, but our understanding of its environmental behavior is still evolving. Human activity has made substantial amounts of mercury bioavailable that would not be under natural conditions.


6. Piracetam is tested for purity in HPLC. Take a closer look, or perhaps put your glasses on. http://relentlessimp...s/pir180coa.pdf

7. Once again; lack of education is taxing your logic. HPLC reports with respect to a set standard. A result above 100% is actually quite common. http://relentlessimp...iracetamcoa.pdf

8. Please do everyone a favor and do a bit of research before you come here to slander and waste our time with your nonsensical drivel.

Let me continue to disabuse you of your multi faceted ignorance: [lol]

1. Jarrow Formulas does not test in house (they don't have their own analytical laboratory at least as far as I know). They appear to rely solely on manufacturers Certificates of Analysis. Luckily, they use suppliers from the European Union and Japan; where what are termed supplements in the United States are regulated as drugs. That's why their products pass the Consumerlab.com tests every time. ;) Jarrow's carnitines are from Sigma Tau health sciences (Italy); their inositol comes from Tsuno rice company (Japan), etc.

2. I do believe LEF owns a laboratory, however, I have not seen it myself. More info: http://www.lef.org/m...r98_report.html Their products don't appear to have any problems passing Consumerlab.com tests either.

3. AOR does not test in house either (they don't have their own analytical laboratory at least as far as I know). They have independently tested some products (where the purity might be a concern I guess); such as are included (as images) below. AOR is not listed at Consumerlab.com.

Two independent tests by AOR:

1. R-alpha-lipoic acid

http://www.imminst.o...-1086033906.jpg

2. Pyridoxamine:

The reason there are three pyridoxamine tests in the image below is because all three samples in question were rejected.

http://www.imminst.o...-1093293047.jpg

When you are not convinced your dietary supplement provider(s) perform their own independent analysis on their products at FDA registered laboratories, then I might suggest individuals join Consumerlab.com and purchase products from those companies whose products consistently pass their tests.

You can read an interview or two with Todd Norton (president of Sabinsa) about Sabinsa's QC:

What are the major problems with quality control facing the natural products industry?


Ensuring Quality Crucial to Industry Viability
Posted on: 07/01/2002

The issue of quality control (QC) remains one of profound interest to industry members. Whether in production, sourcing or claims, quality is the goal. Natural Products Industry INSIDER asked several leading industry executives about their quality control procedures and the major problems facing the industry in this field. Here, you'll find their opinions on the major problems with quality control in the natural products industry.


http://www.naturalpr...271QCfocus.html

What defines a quality dietary ingredient or formula?


Quality Control More Important Than Ever
Posted on: 03/31/2003

Ensuring quality control has become increasingly important in light of recent government activity surrounding dietary ingredients such as kava and ephedra. Federal regulators are seeking to ensure substantiated label claims, while supplement manufacturers are formulating products to win over a more skeptical consumer base.

In order to maintain the industry's integrity, quality ingredients have become the cornerstones for the so-called "responsible" supplement companies. To follow are opinions from industry executives on what constitutes a quality ingredient, as well as debates on certifications, standardization, trademarks, patents and intellectual property.


http://www.naturalpr.../470_341QC.html

Oh, and I need to corect myself. Sabinsa Corporation does indeed have rigourous independent testing performed on many of their products through NSF.

More info: http://www.nsf.org/b...ram=DietarySups

An example below:

http://nootropics.ip...-1117559847.jpg


Take care.

Edited by nootropikamil, 15 October 2006 - 04:35 AM.

  • like x 1

#24 doug123

  • Guest
  • 2,424 posts
  • -1
  • Location:Nowhere

Posted 24 October 2006 - 11:09 PM

Bump. ;)

#25 doug123

  • Guest
  • 2,424 posts
  • -1
  • Location:Nowhere

Posted 20 November 2006 - 07:08 AM

I like this topic a lot.

#26 cellfighter

  • Guest
  • 97 posts
  • -0

Posted 20 November 2006 - 09:49 AM

[quote]Besides correcting misinformation, I'll also issue a quick "Troll Alert." The only way to deal with trolls is to limit your reaction to reminding others not to respond to trolls.[/quote]

Correcting yourself is a great start Adam! Funny you don’t take your own advice.

[quote]First, I tried to cover QC issues in this topic (check it out if you have a minute).

False information corrected:[/quote]


[quote] (cellfighter)

Just as an example Relentless Improvement does some testing but they are still incomplete and that gives me some caution. Why? Well.

1. He does not confirm mg per cap for Aniracetam and for the heavy metal testing he only does lead! I would prefer to see at least a 5 panel heavy metal test which is common with mainstream companies.

2. Centrophenoxine he does do a 5 panel heavy metal test but no mg per cap, and no material purity.

3. Idebenone no mg per cap, and no material purity.

4. Oxiracetam is nearly perfect (mg per cap, heavy metals, and bacteria) is an excellent example of how testing should be done. Only addition would be a purity test to be perfect.

5. Phenibut is pretty bad. No purity testing or mg per cap and I don't want any mercury in my system!

6. Piracetam is fine but needs a purity test. Why? Well if you had 80% purity tested Piracetam and put alot of it in a cap you could fit 805 mg of Piracetam but the rest could be chemicals.


7. Regarding Pramiracetam this one is funny to me as he claims his is purer than the original pharmacetical brand name Pramistar. Wow I did not know Chinese pramiracetam was purer than Italian pramiracetam. What a laugh. Also no testing to confirm mg per cap on this one.

8. While I could go on I think I've made my point.[/quote]


[quote]1. Aniracetam raw material was tested, not the finished product. Lead is the most commonly found contaminant which is why the emphasis is there. If the material is 99.55% pure, free of microbiological contamination, etc. -- and lead -- I wouldn't be too worried about other contamination. You mention "mainstream companies" yet can't cite a single counterexample[/quote]

Why wouldn’t you be concerned of the remaining 0.55%? Lead is the only heavy metal that concerns you? Interesting. Note that one bottle (60 size) has 45 grams of Aniracetam of which that 0.55% in one bottle is 248 mg of unknown material. Consider that carefully.

Enzymatic Therapy, Country Life, Jarrow Formulas, etc etc etc.

[quote]2. Centrophenoxine: raw material was tested by HPLC, for heavy metal content, as well as microbiological content. Take a closer look: http://relentlessimp.../centro_coa.pdf[/quote]

Yes but not the finished product.

[quote]3. Idebenone: raw material was tested by HPLC, for heavy metals, and microbiological contamination. Put your glasses on and check http://relentlessimp...cs/ideb_coa.pdf[/quote]

Not the finished product….again. Perhaps you need contacts.

[quote]4. Oxiracetam is tested for purity in HPLC. Take a closer look (determined by HPLC). http://relentlessimp...docs/oxicoa.pdf[/quote]

Obviously you didn’t bother reading anything I said or these COA’s very well.

[quote]5. Uh, obviously you aren't up to date with your science, or didn't manage to finish high school. There is a little bit of every heavy metal in almost everything on this planet, dude. Even dirt has a little bit of mercury -- that's why we have set limits. If you want no mercury in your system, you'll probably die, kid. Regardless, at this time, this is the most rigourous independent testing of any company selling this compound in the entire world. [/quote]

I’m far more intelligent than you Kid. Yes there is metal everywhere but with drugs and dietary supplements they can be tested to insure no harmful amount is present. Why wouldn’t you want them tested??


[quote] (http://www.medscape....rticle/522270_2)

Mercury (Hg) is a naturally occurring element that is ubiquitous in the Earth's core, crust, soils, oceans, and atmosphere. Mercury can exist in elemental, inorganic, and organic forms, but almost all of the global mercury pool is elemental.[1] One of the organic forms, methylmercury, is the form of current toxicologic concern. Mercury can and does change its chemical form and move among different environmental media, with the global amount of mercury remaining the same, but our understanding of its environmental behavior is still evolving. Human activity has made substantial amounts of mercury bioavailable that would not be under natural conditions.[/quote]

[quote] 6. Piracetam is tested for purity in HPLC. Take a closer look, or perhaps put your glasses on. http://relentlessimp...s/pir180coa.pdf[/quote]

Wow you apparently did not graduate grade school. Nowhere on his “COA” does it list the % purity of Piracetam only the amount in the capsule. Perhaps you need some to understand a very simple concept.

[quote]7. Once again; lack of education is taxing your logic. HPLC reports with respect to a set standard. A result above 100% is actually quite common. http://relentlessimp...iracetamcoa.pdf[/quote]

You don’t seem to process any logic. He failed to test the mg per capsule.

[quote]8. Please do everyone a favor and do a bit of research before you come here to slander and waste our time with your nonsensical drivel.[/quote]

I’ve slandered no one you moron. I simply made a point that everyone including ex drug addicts kids like yourself are flawed.

[quote]Let me continue to disabuse you of your multi faceted ignorance: 

1. Jarrow Formulas does not test in house (they don't have their own analytical laboratory at least as far as I know). They appear to rely solely on manufacturers Certificates of Analysis. Luckily, they use suppliers from the European Union and Japan; where what are termed supplements in the United States are regulated as drugs. That's why their products pass the Consumerlab.com tests every time.  Jarrow's carnitines are from Sigma Tau health sciences (Italy); their inositol comes from Tsuno rice company (Japan), etc.[/quote]

Jarrow has an excellent in house testing center and they have send me their own COA’s on a few items. I guess you need to work on your “as far as you know” excuse. It’s very lame.

[quote]2. I do believe LEF owns a laboratory, however, I have not seen it myself. More info: http://www.lef.org/m...r98_report.html Their products don't appear to have any problems passing Consumerlab.com tests either.[/quote]

You need to work on your beliefs. LEF’s chromium failed a supplement safety test published by ConsumerLab last November 2005. I hope you don't consider yourself smart or informed....you would be in for a massive letdown. Also if anything you help prove my case. Thanks!!

[quote]When you are not convinced your dietary supplement provider(s) perform their own independent analysis on their products at FDA registered laboratories, then I might suggest individuals join Consumerlab.com and purchase products from those companies whose products consistently pass their tests.[/quote]

Interesting advice why don’t you follow it? Let me guess you can't afford it but you can afford to risk the health of anyone you've sold your products to. Wow you're quite the business man.

#27 doug123

  • Guest
  • 2,424 posts
  • -1
  • Location:Nowhere

Posted 20 November 2006 - 07:03 PM

Not a single reference for any of your points and you expect me to even bother to read your emotional anecdotes?

Take care.

#28 AaronCW

  • Guest, F@H
  • 183 posts
  • -1
  • Location:Chicago, IL.

Posted 21 November 2006 - 09:06 AM

I've taken the time to review both sides of this debate, and I think cellfighter comes out on top.

Nootropikamil, you cannot write off an entire list of relevant points as 'emotional anecdotes' and pretend that you won the debate.

#29 olderbutwiser

  • Guest
  • 44 posts
  • 1

Posted 21 November 2006 - 02:17 PM

I’ve slandered no one you moron.

I like that one. It almost rises to the level of a signature quote

OBW

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Adverts help to support LongeCity's non-profit work. To go ad-free join as Member.

#30 doug123

  • Guest
  • 2,424 posts
  • -1
  • Location:Nowhere

Posted 21 November 2006 - 06:42 PM

Take whatever "side" you choose; I try not to feed the troll. I also don't even bother to read posts or debate with individuals who don't back up their arguments with scientific references. I can usually find something more productive to do....

Have fun.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users