821 replies to this topic

[pure]

Give it to the external lab Genscript use. It's in China, but you'll get EVERYTHING tested for $350-$400

[dz93]

Give it to the external lab Genscript use. It's in China, but you'll get EVERYTHING tested for $350-$400

 

No thanks. The last we need is someone thinking the results were wrong or inaccurate because it came from some cheap chinese lab. I want nondisputable results.

[pure]

Haha. By association you are therefore suggesting Genscript's quality and reputation is not to be trusted.
You obviously have absolutely no idea and are a complete novice.
It is a waste of time trying to help.
You wouldn't even be at this juncture in terms of exposing the BS and major credibility concerns surrounding TLR if it wasn't for me.

I was the one who pointed out the litany of deficiencies and BS in the TLR offering, while all the majority did was do what humans do best - live in hope, and defend TLR.

Edited by pure, 04 June 2015 - 02:11 PM.

[dz93]

Haha. By association you are therefore suggesting Genscript's quality and reputation is not to be trusted.
You obviously have absolutely no idea and are a complete novice.
It is a waste of time trying to help.
You wouldn't even be at this juncture in terms of exposing the BS and poor credibility if it wasn't for me. I was the one who pointed out the litany of deficiencies and BS in the TLR offering.

 

Then I won't help. You do it. You are the one who pointed everything out and I wouldn't be doing this if it wasn't for you. So, rightfully, you should handle testing. Have at it.

 

Edit: Called Genescript. They won't accept samples from individuals for testing. They said I could have them synthesize it for me but they said I couldn't send them the sample for LC/MS testing. But, of course, what do I know. I'm a complete novice. So I'm glad Pure is now in charge of setting up LC/MS testing. If anyone truly wants to continue to pursure this, go through him.

Edited by dz93, 04 June 2015 - 02:20 PM.

[pure]

Where are all the complaints and reports about Genscript's poor quality on the internet?

There aren't any. Have a search for yourself.

Therefore, it stands to reason that both Genscript and the independent lab they use are competent.. unless they've both just gotten lucky for 20 years.

.

If you get the sample organized and prepared, and decide upon the list of tests, I'll give you the details of the independent lab Genscript use, and it can be couriered to them. I could also organize the courier if no one uses couriers and has an account with reasonable rates.

They can send the reports directly to you or others who participated in the GB.

.

You never know, maybe the results will vindicate TLR. If so, what will that then say about Ceretropics credibility, knowledge and competency given the 'sciency' schpeil they forward which all but confirms TLR are fraudsters?

WTF??? sorry, I succumbed for a moment to that human weakness of living in hope. Forget that. ..vindicate TLR  hahaha

 

[dz93]

Where are all the complaints and reports about Genscript's poor quality on the internet?

There aren't any. Have a search for yourself.

Therefore, it stands to reason that both Genscript and the independent lab they use are competent.. unless they've both just gotten lucky for 20 years.

.

If you get the sample organized and prepared, and decide upon the list of tests, I'll give you the details of the independent lab Genscript use, and it can be couriered to them. I could also organize the courier if no one uses couriers and has an account with reasonable rates.

They can send the reports directly to you or others who participated in the GB.

.

You never know, maybe the results will vindicate TLR. If so, what will that then say about Ceretropics credibility, knowledge and competency given the 'sciency' schpeil they forward which all but confirms TLR are fraudsters?

WTF??? sorry, I succumbed for a moment to that human weakness of living in hope. Forget that. ..vindicate TLR  hahaha

 

I never said Genscripts products are of poor quality. You made that assumption. I said I didn't want to go through a cheap chinese lab. Ceretropic gave me a quote for 600, Avomeen gave me a quote for 2000 just for identification. What does that tell you about $350 testing? Now, I may be falsly assuming that, based on the price, their results may not be as reliable as someone here in the USA. If everyone wants to use Genscript then I'm fine with that. The inexpensive cost of their testing is what raised a red flag for me. I've never done any business with Genscript so I have no reason to question their competence. Only the reliability of such inexpensive testing.

 

If the sample does indeed come back to show it does contain GHK then Ceretropic will need to reconsider their analytical methods and maybe a staff change. That's to be determined though. I'm not here to support or back up Ceretropic. I'm here to get indisputable testing done on the substance in question so people can finally use their product with ease in mind or if they should throw it out because it's fake.

 

"If you get the sample organized and prepared, and decide upon the list of tests, I'll give you the details of the independent lab Genscript use, and it can be couriered to them. I could also organize the courier if no one uses couriers and has an account with reasonable rates."

 

Where have you been? A few members have already stated they would be glad to send out their sample, we've decided to do LC/MS testing for identification and purity. Hazardous materials will also be included assuming it doesn't cost too much extra. Avomeen laughed when I asked for hazardous materials testing because there's such a broad range of materials to be tested. Just post the details of the lab here or PM me and I'll contact their lab to get a quote. Like I said, I just called Genscript and they wouldn't help me with individual testing.

 

Btw, what was that price range you gave me based on? Have you had compounds tested through them in the past? Do you have any experience with the independent lab genscript uses?

Edited by dz93, 04 June 2015 - 02:53 PM.

[pure]

If you suggest the 3rd party lab which Genscript use are nothing but a 'cheap Chinese lab' (implying low quality) then you are implying Genscript are also of the same ilk.

Just because something is from China and it is cheaper does not necessarily mean it is poor quality.

Edited by pure, 04 June 2015 - 03:18 PM.

[pure]

OMG, of course they won't accept samples from individuals for testing.

 

Haha. By association you are therefore suggesting Genscript's quality and reputation is not to be trusted.
You obviously have absolutely no idea and are a complete novice.
It is a waste of time trying to help.
You wouldn't even be at this juncture in terms of exposing the BS and poor credibility if it wasn't for me. I was the one who pointed out the litany of deficiencies and BS in the TLR offering.

 

Then I won't help. You do it. You are the one who pointed everything out and I wouldn't be doing this if it wasn't for you. So, rightfully, you should handle testing. Have at it.

 

Edit: Called Genescript. They won't accept samples from individuals for testing. They said I could have them synthesize it for me but they said I couldn't send them the sample for LC/MS testing. But, of course, what do I know. I'm a complete novice. So I'm glad Pure is now in charge of setting up LC/MS testing. If anyone truly wants to continue to pursure this, go through him.

 

 

[dz93]

If you suggest the 3rd party lab which Genscript use are nothing but a 'cheap Chinese lab' (implying low quality) then you are implying Genscript are also of the same ilk.

Just because something is from China and it is cheaper does not necessarily mean it is poor quality.

 

Dude, I don't give a f*ck about Genscript or their products. If you're not going to help with testing then leave. I've asked simple questions, which you've avoided.

 

What was that price range you gave me based on? Have you had compounds tested through them in the past? Do you have any experience with the independent lab genscript uses?

 

If you can't answer those questions then I won't use the independent lab you're suggesting. I don't think I'm here wasting anyones time. I think you are the one who is wasting my time. If you can't be of any use then why are you here? To just scrutinize me? What is your goal here? To get testing done or to continue to waste my time telling me about genscript and their products. I don't care!

 

And if they won't do individual testing then how the hell are we supposed to get this sample tested?! You do know what individual means right? It means one person, sending a sample for testing. If they will not accept a sample from an individual for testing then how do your propose we get them to test it? Stop avoiding the questions and the topic at hand. This is not about Genscripts products! Okay? Do you get that?!

Edited by dz93, 04 June 2015 - 03:39 PM.

[dz93]

Chemir just emailed me back. They charge $300 - $400 per hour for testing and said it usually takes about 20 - 30 hours to complete.. So that's $6,000 to $12,000 for testing through them. That's a no go.

Edited by dz93, 04 June 2015 - 03:36 PM.

[pure]

What does $600 versus $2000 tell you about the $600 testing? Probably the same as what you are suggesting about $350 testing.

But in fact, you are wrong. It is meaningless to relate/index prices for testing to quality of results. There is no connection or association if you use the right source.

On the subject of China and price/quality, where do you think Ceretropic/Newstar Nootropics and others get many of their raw materials from? CHINA!!!

But (believe it or not) you will find reports on the internet about the high quality of their products (which were produced in China).

It just comes down to source. Your assumption that lower prices translates to lower quality testing results is completely false.

.

What people say and what people do are two different things. Sure, people have said they would donate a sample. Talk is cheap.

But, it still has to actually be done (packaged up, Customs documentation prepared, courier organized, courier documentation prepared, etc.)

And, the list of individual tests has to be determined. There's more to it and involved than just words.

.

Genscript will not arrange testing for individuals.

The price estimate I gave you was based on a full suite of tests, but you would probably know after just doing Peptide Content and Amino Acid Analysis tests if it is GHK/GHK-Cu, which would cost even less.

I have used their lab before to test a peptide Genscript synthesized.

To order testing you should know what to ask for. Otherwise a lab will 'assume' certain things about you and you will get over-quoted, as you possibly already have been.

You need to sound like you know what you're talking about.

.

The first step is to determine the list of individual tests.

 

 

Where are all the complaints and reports about Genscript's poor quality on the internet?

There aren't any. Have a search for yourself.

Therefore, it stands to reason that both Genscript and the independent lab they use are competent.. unless they've both just gotten lucky for 20 years.

If you get the sample organized and prepared, and decide upon the list of tests, I'll give you the details of the independent lab Genscript use, and it can be couriered to them. I could also organize the courier if no one uses couriers and has an account with reasonable rates.

They can send the reports directly to you or others who participated in the GB.

You never know, maybe the results will vindicate TLR. If so, what will that then say about Ceretropics credibility, knowledge and competency given the 'sciency' schpeil they forward which all but confirms TLR are fraudsters?

WTF??? sorry, I succumbed for a moment to that human weakness of living in hope. Forget that. ..vindicate TLR  hahaha

 

I never said Genscripts products are of poor quality. You made that assumption. I said I didn't want to go through a cheap chinese lab. Ceretropic gave me a quote for 600, Avomeen gave me a quote for 2000 just for identification. What does that tell you about $350 testing? Now, I may be falsly assuming that, based on the price, their results may not be as reliable as someone here in the USA. If everyone wants to use Genscript then I'm fine with that. The inexpensive cost of their testing is what raised a red flag for me. I've never done any business with Genscript so I have no reason to question their competence. Only the reliability of such inexpensive testing.

 

If the sample does indeed come back to show it does contain GHK then Ceretropic will need to reconsider their analytical methods and maybe a staff change. That's to be determined though. I'm not here to support or back up Ceretropic. I'm here to get indisputable testing done on the substance in question so people can finally use their product with ease in mind or if they should throw it out because it's fake.

 

"If you get the sample organized and prepared, and decide upon the list of tests, I'll give you the details of the independent lab Genscript use, and it can be couriered to them. I could also organize the courier if no one uses couriers and has an account with reasonable rates."

 

Where have you been? A few members have already stated they would be glad to send out their sample, we've decided to do LC/MS testing for identification and purity. Hazardous materials will also be included assuming it doesn't cost too much extra. Avomeen laughed when I asked for hazardous materials testing because there's such a broad range of materials to be tested. Just post the details of the lab here or PM me and I'll contact their lab to get a quote. Like I said, I just called Genscript and they wouldn't help me with individual testing.

 

Btw, what was that price range you gave me based on? Have you had compounds tested through them in the past? Do you have any experience with the independent lab genscript uses?

 

[dz93]

Ceretropic was going to help pay for the testing. I'm unsure of how much Ceretropic is being charged for testing but they requested $600 from us for testing.

 

Once again, I don't care who we go through. This is not MY decision to make. It's everyones. If everyone wants to use genscript, so be it. If everyone wants to use Ceretropic, okay. If everyone wants a different lab then that's fine. This is not my decision to make. I'm simply asking around, getting quotes and posting the results.

 

You don't have to worry about packaging and shipping the sample. Okay? Just get me information for Genscript independent lab and I'll contact them to get a quote. For all I know, your price range is wrong and it may actually cost more than that for LC/MS testing. I won't know that until I can contact them. We could have all the samples in the world ready to ship at any moment but it won't matter without a lab to test it. I also don't see why someone wouldn't want to offer a vial for a sample when they can't even use it because we don't even know what's in it.

 

Just give me the labs contact information. Can you do that or will that be too difficult for you?

Edited by dz93, 04 June 2015 - 04:01 PM.

[pure]

As I've said and as you've found, they will not do testing for an individual. You need to have an established business-business relationship with them, or be a genuine (or appear to be) business.

So there is no point in you contacting them as an individual.

My price range is not wrong. I have a record of all the individual prices for all possible tests.

You don't know what tests you need. You are just repeating "LC/MS" verbatim.

To 'know', you need to understand the meaning of the information various tests generate and what it tells you.

Then you can determine which tests are appropriate.

As I already wrote, the first step is to resolve the list of relevant tests to be carried out.

If you are suggesting that "LC/MS" is it (despite not really understanding it), then you are wrong.

More homework needs to be done to resolve/finalize the list of tests required to establish all the important facts.

 

 

[dz93]

As I've said and as you've found, they will not do testing for an individual. You need to have an established business-business relationship with them, or be a genuine (or appear to be) business.

So there is no point in you contacting them as an individual.

My price range is not wrong. I have a record of all the individual prices for all possible tests.

You don't know what tests you need. You are just repeating "LC/MS" verbatim.

To 'know', you need to understand the meaning of the information various tests generate and what it tells you.

Then you can determine which tests are appropriate.

As I already wrote, the first step is to resolve the list of relevant tests to be carried out.

If you are suggesting that "LC/MS" is it (despite not really understanding it), then you are wrong.

More homework needs to be done to resolve/finalize the list of tests required to establish all the important facts.

 

Then why did you recommend we use their lab?

 

Of course I don't know what I'm talking about, I've already stated that in earlier posts. That's why Niner gave me some more details on what I need to ask for when getting quotes for tests.

 

I should also note that each lab I've contacted knew exactly what test I wanted when I asked for it. So there's no issue with asking for LC/MS testing with these companies. They know that I don't know how to do the testing or how to read results. That's why we're paying them... so they can do it for us.

 

Do you actually think you're being helpful right now? What helpful information have you provided since you're post about testing through genscript? The way I understand it is all you've done is recommended a lab that doesn't do individual testing so your recommendation was pointless and a waste of time. You also keep talking about how little I know about analytical testing. I've already admitted to that earlier. You have done nothing to help further the progress of getting this substance tested. You literally have done NOTHING except scrutinize me for trying to get testing done. I do not know you're end goal here because it's obviously not about getting testing done. This seems to be personal now because you've made the false assumption that I claimed Genscripts products are of poor quality. Now you seem to have some personal vendetta against me.

 

Until you decide to offer help instead of criticism I won't continue this conversation.

[david ellis]

First, chinese labs are comparable to US labs.    They are both well equipped and have trained staffs and good reputations.     Chinese labs seem inexpensive, but  if  their behavior was notorious, not professional, china couldn't ship chemicals to the rest of the world.     Low cost by itself is not a red flag.   There are two things that explain the low cost in US dollars.  The cost of living on the yuan is lower, not because there is an open market, but because the value of the yuan is kept low by the government to encourage exports.    

 

 

First, I see we have  2 options that are 

First, it seems we have two plans to get our testing done.   Test with Genscripts labs, Or use Ceretropic to order the tests.  I don't like that idea much, because there seems to be competition between Ceretropic and TLR.   (First over taurine not being taurine, and then same kind of statements about our stuff not being GHK at all.-I thought the statements were weird because I never worried about getting GHK-cu, I worried about getting low quality GHK-cu, there is so many suppliers in China with very cheap prices)

 

I offer  a test sample, but  disclose that it was shipped by train from the NY(?) to San Diego, took almost a week longer than others.   I assume there was no refrigeration in the train.   GHK-cu is to be kept at about 2-3+ degrees centigrade.   

 

I had six names when we started,   Please PM me again, so that the names will be in one place, and I offer privacy for folks who fear loss of reputation and increasing notoriety by posting on this thread.     Say we have ten names - that means around $40 apiece.  

 

Edited by david ellis, 09 June 2015 - 05:48 AM.

[DeadMeat]

From Ceretropic.com

"FTIR is a very valid testing method. We did not just look at the library results it matched to. We looked at the whole spectrum, and analyzed where the peaks should be. It is clearly missing many functional groups. Ketones always show up in the same place on an FTIR, and are very pronounced. Those peaks alone not showing up tell us it is not GHK. I sat down and analyzed the spectrum results for 2 hours with multiple chemists. They both agreed that sample cannot contain GHK. It might contain copper II, as that peak was off our snapshot. However, that is not really a big deal when the peptide itself is wrong.

I am not saying it is Poria. That is just the closest spectral match. I am saying that the sample is missing multiple functional groups that GHK should have. FTIR is very suited to pickup up functional groups. I can send off for LC/MS if you want. That is not an issue. It will just take some time to get the results. Our HPLC will be here in a day or so too. So we can LC the components, and test each individually as well.

On another note, I sent those other TLR samples that came back as Taurine to the lab. The lab manager there said he did not believe it was going to come up as Taurine, just based on the color of the powder. However, he called me a few days ago and said that all four perfectly matched Taurine. He was dumbfounded, since he thought it was for sure going to come up as something else. He is still finalizing the results of those for me."

"I've spent a lot of time the past couple months learning analytical chemistry methods, and have hired two chemists now as well. FTIR is great at picking up functional groups, if you know how to analyze it. It is a good tool to use for a quick idea of what you have. Our HPLC is going to allow us to separate components, and give us hard purity numbers. Then we are getting an NMR sometime later this year as well. With all three of those, we can pretty much test anything. A mass spec would be the only other thing that could be used in some cases.

Keep in mind that for us to get 100% certainty on this TLR sample, we need to separate the components via GC or LC. Our HPLC will allow us to separate the components. There is clearly mannitol in there, as would be expected in a lyophilized peptide. Separating that out on the HPLC, and then testing the other compound in it, will give us a complete picture."


I've told them I'd post the email here for you guys to see and we can decide whether or not we still want to pursue LC/MS testing.

 

Their reddit post:
http://www.reddit.co..._tested/crcm7is

Ceretropic and his multiple chemists may want to look up the difference between a ketone and a carbonyl. GHK-Cu does NOT contain ketones(C=O connected to 2 C and only C, not N or O).

As a peptide it does contain amide bonds and a carboxylic acid(I assume ionized carboxyl in this IR table). But compared to the ketone C=O stretch, those have peaks shifted to lower cm-1. From a quick glance, where there is plenty of peak intensity in the sample spectrum.

 

Apart from that it doesn't contain ketones, I don't think there is much that you can say from FTIR of something as complex as a peptide(overlapping peaks all over the place). At least not without separating and a reference sample(keep in mind that peak intensity and stuff, that things like Chemdoodle spit out, is relative and not very accurate even if you know what you are doing.).

[niner]

It's looking more clear that ceretropic is out to make TLR look bad, so I don't think he's an honest broker.  In the reddit post, he's telling them that the sample "matches" poria, a fungal extract.  That's pretty misleading.  He's not a chemist, much less an analytical chemist.  (a chemist would know the difference between an amide and a ketone, and an analytical chemist wouldn't propose testing peptides with GC/MS, or GC/anything.)  Before anyone claims I'm on TLR's payroll or something, what I'm saying has nothing to do with TLR.  I'm saying that if you want an analysis that doesn't have a cloud hanging over it, you better find an independent lab that's not connected to a TLR competitor.

[dz93]

I honestly don't think we'll ever know what's in it. Testing just costs too much. Everyone that I've contacted has been in the thousands for testing.

I don't know what to do from here. I don't even care to know what's in these vials anymore. I'll keep them in case some day someone can get testing done but until then I think I'll just find another source for GHK.

Edit: Is someone here brave enough to be a guinea pig? Thats the only way we will know if what's in the vials are at least safe. If its safe, then more of us can try it and find out if there are indeed beneficial effects that are similar to GHK. I don't know. If anyone has a better idea please suggest it now.

Edited by dz93, 10 June 2015 - 04:14 PM.

[Ceretropic]

Jesus, I seriously don't give a flying fuck about TLR, and would never purposely try and ruin someone's name. There is a reason I have not made a post about TLR's GHK, confirming for sure what it is. I put up the results I got in a comment reply, and went through my analysis of it. I even stated: "Keep in mind I am still new to analytical chemistry, so I have been doing a lot of reading." I am not an analytical chemist, and am relying on reading/opinions of other chemists on the matter. I am not sure what we have yet, as FTIR is not ideal at picking up unknown mixtures of compounds without spectral database entries, but does show functional groups. I never said it was poria. I simply said that was what the Thermo Scientific algorithm said was the closest spectral match. I also did not request any money from anyone for testing. I told someone via email how much it usually costs. I also suggested some other labs that they could use instead of Colmeric.

 

You are right, I flipped my terms with ketone and carbonyl. All ketones contain a carbonyl group. However, not all carbonyls are ketones. A ketone will be a strong peak at 1705-1725. A carbonyl will be a strong peak between 1670-1820. That is still not showing up on the spectrum. There are no strong peaks in that region. Carbonyl stretches, whether they are ketones, carboxylic acids, or similar, are some of the strongest IR absorptions. Those not being there is telling. Again, I am not an analytical chemist. Perhaps there is some fundamental thing I am missing. However, when I ran my thoughts past Colin, and a couple other people who understand chemistry better than I do, they thought the same. In my email that was relayed here, I made it clear we needed more testing to know for sure by stating: "Keep in mind that for us to get 100% certainty on this TLR sample, we need to separate the components via LC. Our HPLC will allow us to separate the components. There is clearly mannitol in there, as would be expected in a lyophilized peptide. Separating that out on the HPLC, and then testing the other compound in it, will give us a complete picture." That testing needs to take place before we can reach any certainty on what exactly the sample is.

 

Honestly it is pretty fucking stupid that I am the one having to organize testing of a TLR product. Shouldn't group buys have that cost built in? Don't people care about their own safety enough to pitch in a few more bucks per person, and have an unbiased third party confirm the stuff before going out? Wouldn't it benefit TLR to run some testing of their own, and make sure everything is good? Seriously, why is nobody else capable of doing anything but talk about things? I have easy access to an FTIR, which is why we ran it through that. I now have an HPLC as well (still waiting on the columns and solvents, though). The next purchase is an NMR. But for now, I can only FTIR things quickly. Everything else needs to be sent out to other labs, and then the waiting game happens. If I had a LC/MS in the next room, it would be super easy to get the data on stuff like this. I just don't have that equipment yet, so I did what I could with what I had access to. But I am just one person with a shitload on my plate, and no real reason to even test this peptide sample, other than to make sure people are getting what they think they are. I even have no problem paying for the damn testing, since you guys don't want to yourselves. Colmeric is just taking so long on other samples, and I don't have the time to organize things with other labs. If you want to wait for Colmeric to get results, which could take 4 weeks or more, then I am up for paying for it. If you want to directly send the sample to him too, so it eliminates claims of bias, that is perfect. The less stupid shit I have to do, the better. Hell, maybe Colin will separate it out with an HPLC, then NMR each component.

 

I seriously hope it is GHK, so you all can get the effects you are looking for. But you guys need to have a serious look into what testing should be required for group buys, and who is going to organize the testing.

[Heisenburger]

No complaints from this row of the peanut gallery. You and New Star are still getting all my business. One of these days I’ll get off my ass and hop on the product reviews; te prometo.

[smithx]

I've been busy and away, but now that I'm back I will again make an offer:

 

I will have the testing done by a reputable university lab. To be certain it will work properly, we need a KNOWN GOOD SAMPLE to run as the control.

 

I will get this testing taken care of in exchange for a gram of the material, plus the quantity needed for testing (less than 100mg). The testing will be via LCMS.

 

A known good sample would not be required if we had a validated spectrographic signature and protocol for the compound, but I haven't heard anyone saying that's available.

 

 

[Ceretropic]

Sigma Aldrich has GHK acetate. That is the closest I could find for a reference.

 

http://www.sigmaaldr...ng=en&region=US

 

I have not been able to find GHK-Cu or even a non-salt GHK sample.

[Gerald W. Gaston]

I've been away from this like many of you with more urgent matters.

I'm still interested in helping with the testing. I have product from the TLR group buy doing nothing but chilling in cold storage. And I can make a small contribution to the cost of testing. If everyone that bought product in this group buy contributed we could afford it. I'm not in any position to suggest a good testing lab. But as one of the most long term and trusted members I would prefer someone like David Ellis to control/hold the funds.

Again I ask.... Has anyone that bought product from this group buy started using said product??? Anyone?

Edited by gwgaston, 02 July 2015 - 06:49 PM.

[dz93]

I've been away from this like many of you with more urgent matters.

I'm still interested in helping with the testing. I have product from the TLR group buy doing nothing but chilling in cold storage. And I can make a small contribution to the cost of testing. If everyone that bought product in this group buy contributed we could afford it. I'm not in any position to suggest a good testing lab. But as one of the most long term and trusted members I would prefer someone like David Ellis to control/hold the funds.

Again I ask.... Has anyone that bought product from this group buy started using said product??? Anyone?

I haven't used any yet.

[tintinet]

I've been away from this like many of you with more urgent matters.

I'm still interested in helping with the testing. I have product from the TLR group buy doing nothing but chilling in cold storage. And I can make a small contribution to the cost of testing. If everyone that bought product in this group buy contributed we could afford it. I'm not in any position to suggest a good testing lab. But as one of the most long term and trusted members I would prefer someone like David Ellis to control/hold the funds.

Again I ask.... Has anyone that bought product from this group buy started using said product??? Anyone?

I haven't used any yet.

Same- cold storage!

[DeadMeat]

You are right, I flipped my terms with ketone and carbonyl. All ketones contain a carbonyl group. However, not all carbonyls are ketones. A ketone will be a strong peak at 1705-1725. A carbonyl will be a strong peak between 1670-1820. That is still not showing up on the spectrum. There are no strong peaks in that region. Carbonyl stretches, whether they are ketones, carboxylic acids, or similar, are some of the strongest IR absorptions. Those not being there is telling. Again, I am not an analytical chemist. Perhaps there is some fundamental thing I am missing. However, when I ran my thoughts past Colin, and a couple other people who understand chemistry better than I do, they thought the same. In my email that was relayed here, I made it clear we needed more testing to know for sure by stating: "Keep in mind that for us to get 100% certainty on this TLR sample, we need to separate the components via LC. Our HPLC will allow us to separate the components. There is clearly mannitol in there, as would be expected in a lyophilized peptide. Separating that out on the HPLC, and then testing the other compound in it, will give us a complete picture." That testing needs to take place before we can reach any certainty on what exactly the sample is.

 

You are still looking at too high values of cm-1. That range does not or not fully include the functional groups that are actually in GHK-Cu. Especially the COO^- group, ionized carboxyl, carboxylate salt or amino acid zwitterion is a special case and is at 1550–1610 and amide is at 1630-1690 cm-1. See IR table 1, 2 and 3 for example.

 

Again, there is peak intensity there and "strong peak" is relative when there are lots of other strong and overlapping peaks in the region or even just lots of weaker(adding up) peaks. The left most shoulder type peak in that region could easily be all thats still visible of the amide C=O stretch for example.

Some example IR spectra. Amino acids:
http://chemistrytext...mino-acids.html
Amide:
http://chemistrytext...ed-spectra.html

Also see the reference FTIR spectra of GHK-Cu in figure 3 of this study. It's a bit difficult to see due to variable scale and mirrored axis. But it looks quite similar to the sample spectrum. If you take into account the mannitol peaks and that it doesn't have to be a perfect match due to different machine, conditions, GHK-Cu versus GHK-Cu/GHK or possibly a (GHK)2-Cu complex as discussed a few pages back, etc. But from that sample spectrum, I definitely can't see any clear or "telling" evidence that its not GHK-Cu/GHK with mannitol.

[Ceretropic]

In the FTIR spectra you posted of GHK-Cu, there is a peak at 3412. Are you saying that the mannitol in the sample could be shifting the peaks down in cm-1 values? Could the mannitol also be causing the expected peak from the GHK at 1579 to not appear as strong?

 

We just got our HPLC online. So we can try separating the mannitol out of the sample, and then running each component through the FTIR again. I found HPLC retention times for GHK in this patent too. So we might not even need to further FTIR it. If the retention times match/don't match, then we would have a good idea if it is or is not GHK. Their methods use a C18 column and acetonitrile/water with TFA, which we have from Sigma. The Agilent technician just left a couple hours ago, after getting everything calibrated and my guys trained. We are running a Tianeptine Sodium test right now to break it in. I will see if we can run the TLR sample afterwards.

[Ceretropic]

Ok, we just ran the sample through the HPLC, using the methods found in the patent I linked before. This was using 30% acetonitrile and 70% water with .1% TFA, using a C18 column, and the same flow rate. In the patent, the retention time for GHK was 5.9min. In our testing, we did not have any retention times even close to that. The largest peak we had was at a 1.88min retention time, with 75.2% of the area. Then we had a peak at a 1.45min retention time, with 15.06% of the area. Then a third peak at a 1.32min retention time, with 8.67% of the area. So there appear to be three main components in the sample, that constitute 75%, 15%, and 8%. None of the peaks match the retention times, or the expected shape, that GHK peak should be, according to the patent documentation.

 

Here is the HPLC output

 

Based on the HPLC results, the testing does not support the conclusion that the sample contains GHK peptide. To get further results, I would need a mass spec. I sent a message to our Agilent rep, to get pricing on adding an MS to our system. Mass specs are not cheap, though. It's probably going to be a while before I can justify purchasing it. If someone can find me a reference standard for GHK that I can purchase, and run through the HPLC using the same methods, that would further confirm the results. Sigma only has the acetate salt, or I would have already ordered it.

 

So hopefully that sheds a bit more light on it for you guys. I am going to contact a supplier of GHK-Cu, and ask if they can give me the HPLC retention times they have set for their standard. That way we can confirm that the patent document is correct.

[niner]

Ok, we just ran the sample through the HPLC, using the methods found in the patent I linked before. This was using 30% acetonitrile and 70% water with .1% TFA, using a C18 column, and the same flow rate. In the patent, the retention time for GHK was 5.9min. In our testing, we did not have any retention times even close to that. The largest peak we had was at a 1.88min retention time, with 75.2% of the area. Then we had a peak at a 1.45min retention time, with 15.06% of the area. Then a third peak at a 1.32min retention time, with 8.67% of the area. So there appear to be three main components in the sample, that constitute 75%, 15%, and 8%. None of the peaks match the retention times, or the expected shape, that GHK peak should be, according to the patent documentation.

 

Here is the HPLC output

 

Based on the HPLC results, the testing does not support the conclusion that the sample contains GHK peptide. To get further results, I would need a mass spec. I sent a message to our Agilent rep, to get pricing on adding an MS to our system. Mass specs are not cheap, though. It's probably going to be a while before I can justify purchasing it. If someone can find me a reference standard for GHK that I can purchase, and run through the HPLC using the same methods, that would further confirm the results. Sigma only has the acetate salt, or I would have already ordered it.

 

So hopefully that sheds a bit more light on it for you guys. I am going to contact a supplier of GHK-Cu, and ask if they can give me the HPLC retention times they have set for their standard. That way we can confirm that the patent document is correct.

 

You might want to try injecting a smaller quantity of the material; the main peak looks overloaded.   It's difficult to know if you've matched the column and all other parameters to the chromatogram from the patent, so I wouldn't recommend using that as a method of identification.  You really need to get known samples of GHK, GHK-Cu, and Mannitol, and run those on the setup you have.  That will be a lot cheaper than a mass spec.  I suspect that the three main components in your sample are Mannitol, GHK, and GHK-Cu, and the retention times are different because you have a more modern column.  Do you know for sure that the patent was using isocratic elution?
 

[lifescience]

We are the manufacture of GHK and GHK-Cu with lab located in China, based on our experience, you need to adjust analytic method in 2 different ways.

 

1. Mobile phase ratio.  30% Acetonitrile is too strong for strong polar compound GHK-Cu , that is the reason you got almost no retention time on column. The suitable mobile phase could be from 0.1% to 30% solvent B in 30minutes, you can check our result in #299; What the WO patent want to express is linear increase from 0 to 30% rathar than constant 30% solvent B.

2. Injection amount. your sample maybe too concentrated. usually the best resuly can be obtained when absorption value is around 1000(sharp peak) which can be easily obtained by dilute sample or inject less volumn.

 

As I explained in #299, the first peak is Cu ion, the 2nd peak is GHK, you can't see GHK-Cu peak due to the exist of TFA in mobile phase(GHK-Cu destryed in strong acid environment)  .

 

Hope the above can help your analysis.

 

 

 

Ok, we just ran the sample through the HPLC, using the methods found in the patent I linked before. This was using 30% acetonitrile and 70% water with .1% TFA, using a C18 column, and the same flow rate. In the patent, the retention time for GHK was 5.9min. In our testing, we did not have any retention times even close to that. The largest peak we had was at a 1.88min retention time, with 75.2% of the area. Then we had a peak at a 1.45min retention time, with 15.06% of the area. Then a third peak at a 1.32min retention time, with 8.67% of the area. So there appear to be three main components in the sample, that constitute 75%, 15%, and 8%. None of the peaks match the retention times, or the expected shape, that GHK peak should be, according to the patent documentation.

 

Here is the HPLC output

 

Based on the HPLC results, the testing does not support the conclusion that the sample contains GHK peptide. To get further results, I would need a mass spec. I sent a message to our Agilent rep, to get pricing on adding an MS to our system. Mass specs are not cheap, though. It's probably going to be a while before I can justify purchasing it. If someone can find me a reference standard for GHK that I can purchase, and run through the HPLC using the same methods, that would further confirm the results. Sigma only has the acetate salt, or I would have already ordered it.

 

So hopefully that sheds a bit more light on it for you guys. I am going to contact a supplier of GHK-Cu, and ask if they can give me the HPLC retention times they have set for their standard. That way we can confirm that the patent document is correct.