🍪 CompoundTalk uses cookies to improve your experience, analyze traffic, and personalize content. By continuing to use this site, you agree to our Cookie Policy.
Evidence-based GLP-1 & peptide discussion since 2023
ForumsCOA & Analytical TestingCOA red flag compilation — what worked for you?

COA red flag compilation — what worked for you?

mike_nyc Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 10:51 PM 36 replies 2,728 viewsPage 1 of 8
This thread is more than 26 months old. Information may be outdated. Consider searching for more recent discussions.
mike_nyc
VIP Member
5,678
21,345
Nov 2023
New York
Online
Mar 21, 2024 at 10:51 PM#1

This gets cited here weekly, usually second-hand, so it is worth setting out what it does and does not establish.

The pattern that distinguishes a bad batch from an exit is behaviour rather than product. A bad batch comes with communication, a reshipment offer and a batch number. An exit comes with slower replies, pressure toward less reversible payment methods, sudden discounting, and the same reassurance repeated without any new information. The product tells you less than the correspondence does.

Where I think it is weakest: the subgroup findings are the part I trust least — with enough subgroups something is always significant, and these were not all pre-registered.

So the question, as narrowly as I can put it: what a vetting checklist should actually contain, as opposed to a list of things that are easy to fake. Tell me what I have not thought of.

Note on sourcing:
Figures above are from the primary publication rather than the press summary. If a number here disagrees with one you have, post yours and we will work out which of us is reading a secondary source.
28 23maya_sedona, stefan_berlin, Dr.EM_Chicago and 25 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
PharmacoVig_BOS
Senior Member
1,567
8,901
Feb 2024
Boston, MA
Mar 21, 2024 at 11:30 PM#2
mike_nyc said:
The pattern that distinguishes a bad batch from an exit is behaviour rather than product.

That is correct as far as it goes, and here is where it stops going. The useful checklist is about verifiability rather than presentation. Independent test results commissioned by buyers rather than by the seller, consistency across multiple batches over time rather than one flattering report, a physical address and a company registration that resolve, batch and lot numbers on the actual labelling, and a shipping practice that matches what the material needs. Everything a good-looking website provides is cheap to fake; none of the items above are.

27 22Dr.GutHealth, amsterdam_pete, LondonLisa and 24 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
Dr.NutriCornell
Senior Member
1,345
6,234
Mar 2024
Ithaca, NY
Mar 22, 2024 at 12:09 AM#3
mike_nyc said:
The pattern that distinguishes a bad batch from an exit is behaviour rather than product.

I disagree that testing history is decisive. It tells you what a supplier did when they were being watched. Continuity of behaviour under stress — a late shipment, a failed test, a complaint — is more predictive than any run of good results.

Last edited: Mar 22, 2024 at 2:09 AM
26 21laura_annarbor, JenMemphis, pat_auckland and 23 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report

Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards

Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.

Shop Reference Standards
Dr.SurgeonPGH
Senior Member
1,345
6,789
Mar 2024
Pittsburgh, PA
Mar 22, 2024 at 12:48 AM#4

Answering the narrow version, because the broad one does not have a single answer. Prices dramatically below market are the strongest single signal, and the reason is arithmetic rather than suspicion. Synthesis, testing, and cold-chain shipping have floors. A price well under the floor means something was skipped, and the two things that get skipped are testing and content.

Last edited: Mar 22, 2024 at 3:48 AM
25 20RickReta_CO, PharmHunterJen, TomTeleRx and 22 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
roxy_nash
Member
178
890
Dec 2024
Nashville, TN
Mar 22, 2024 at 4:27 AM#5
PharmacoVig_BOS said:
The useful checklist is about verifiability rather than presentation.

Agreed, and mass spec answers a question purity does not: identity. High purity tells you one thing dominates the chromatogram, not that it is the molecule you ordered. A mass within about a dalton of expected is the identity check.

Last edited: Mar 22, 2024 at 10:27 AM
24 19kim_atl_prep, sarah_TO, wendy_avl and 21 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
1238

Similar Threads

HPLC vs UPLC for peptide purity — method comparison study18 replies
Mass spectrometry for peptide identity verification — ESI-MS guide7 replies
Endotoxin testing methods — LAL vs recombinant Factor C17 replies
Red flags on COAs — how to spot a fake certificate5 replies
USP reference standards for peptide verification — sourcing guide3 replies
ForumsNewTrendingMembersAccount

Log In

Forgot password?
No account? Register