View
Semantic Search: Fwd: BAC Water Amazon Testing — March 2026 | Only 2 of 11 Passed | Data Shared by Peptide Crafters
Fwd: BAC Water Amazon Testing — March 2026 | Only 2 of 11 Passed | Data Shared by Peptide Crafters
Score 0.901
· Account oc.tjphuhs@gmail.com
· 3/18/2026, 9:54:30 AM
Fwd: BAC Water Amazon Testing — March 2026 | Only 2 of 11 Passed | Data Shared by Peptide Crafters from tjphuhs@gmail.com on 2026-03-18T13:54:30.000Z in potency happens gradually. You won’t necessarily know until your results don’t make sense or your vial clouds up. Hospira BAC water has a long track record, known specs, and is what most legitimate research operations reach for by default. It’s not the only acceptable option, but it’s the standard for a reason. The cost difference between Hospir
Fwd: BAC Water Amazon Testing — March 2026 | Only 2 of 11 Passed | Data Shared by Peptide Crafters
Score 0.897
· Account oc.tjphuhs@gmail.com
· 3/18/2026, 9:54:30 AM
Fwd: BAC Water Amazon Testing — March 2026 | Only 2 of 11 Passed | Data Shared by Peptide Crafters from tjphuhs@gmail.com on 2026-03-18T13:54:30.000Z I had the chance to meet the owner recently and we both landed on the same page — more real data in the hands of researchers is always the right call, regardless of any commercial relationship. They gave me permission to share early results from their latest round of Amazon BAC water testing. These COAs were just completed in March 2026 by Vanguard
Fwd: BAC Water Amazon Testing — March 2026 | Only 2 of 11 Passed | Data Shared by Peptide Crafters
Score 0.882
· Account oc.tjphuhs@gmail.com
· 3/18/2026, 9:54:30 AM
Fwd: BAC Water Amazon Testing — March 2026 | Only 2 of 11 Passed | Data Shared by Peptide Crafters from tjphuhs@gmail.com on 2026-03-18T13:54:30.000Z the peptide aggregates or degrades faster than expected, and they blame the peptide. The BAC water was the variable the whole time. The Data — 11 Amazon Samples Tested, March 2026 All testing performed by Vanguard Laboratory (A2LA accredited, ISO 17025). USP acceptable ranges: Benzyl Alcohol 0.72%–1.08% | pH 4.0–7.0 Parrox Reconstitution Solution —
Fwd: BAC Water Amazon Testing — March 2026 | Only 2 of 11 Passed | Data Shared by Peptide Crafters
Score 0.860
· Account oc.tjphuhs@gmail.com
· 3/18/2026, 9:54:30 AM
Fwd: BAC Water Amazon Testing — March 2026 | Only 2 of 11 Passed | Data Shared by Peptide Crafters from tjphuhs@gmail.com on 2026-03-18T13:54:30.000Z TJ Begin forwarded message: From: Derek from Peptide Price <derekpruski@substack.com> Date: March 18, 2026 at 8:25:03 AM EDT To: tjphuhs@gmail.com Subject: BAC Water Amazon Testing — March 2026 | Only 2 of 11 Passed | Data Shared by Peptide Crafters Reply-To: Derek from Peptide Price <reply+35xipn&4iwoe6&&c503d995bd79744bfc5b0e884fb11956ced55e91dec
No More Bac Water on Amazon
Score 0.804
· Account tjphuhs@gmail.com
· 3/31/2026, 9:43:10 AM
No More Bac Water on Amazon from derekpruski@substack.com on 2026-03-31T13:43:10.000Z View this post on the web at https://derekpruski.substack.com/p/no-more-bac-water-on-amazon As many of you know, I recently shared some of the data from the Peptide Crafters study testing the pH and benzyl alcohol content of bacteriostatic water being sold on Amazon. Only 2 of 11 products passed. I’ll link the full study below. Now it looks like Amazon may be pulling bac water from the platform entirely. There
Fwd: The Test That's Actually Failing - 3 of 6 Failed Sterility at 99.8%
Score 0.725
· Account oc.tjphuhs@gmail.com
· 3/26/2026, 11:39:40 AM
Fwd: The Test That's Actually Failing - 3 of 6 Failed Sterility at 99.8% from tjphuhs@gmail.com on 2026-03-26T15:39:40.000Z ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Derek from Peptide Price <derekpruski@substack.com> Date: Mar 26, 2026 at 8:49 AM -0400 To: tjphuhs@gmail.com Subject: The Test That's Actually Failing - 3 of 6 Failed Sterility at 99.8% > Yesterday I ran a poll asking which test you’d add on top of identification, purity, and net content. > ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏
Fwd: The Test That's Actually Failing - 3 of 6 Failed Sterility at 99.8%
Score 0.725
· Account tjphuhs@gmail.com
· 3/26/2026, 11:39:40 AM
Fwd: The Test That's Actually Failing - 3 of 6 Failed Sterility at 99.8% from tjphuhs@gmail.com on 2026-03-26T15:39:40.000Z ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Derek from Peptide Price <derekpruski@substack.com> Date: Mar 26, 2026 at 8:49 AM -0400 To: tjphuhs@gmail.com Subject: The Test That's Actually Failing - 3 of 6 Failed Sterility at 99.8% > Yesterday I ran a poll asking which test you’d add on top of identification, purity, and net content. > ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏
Fwd: The Test That's Actually Failing - 3 of 6 Failed Sterility at 99.8%
Score 0.724
· Account oc.tjphuhs@gmail.com
· 3/26/2026, 11:39:40 AM
Fwd: The Test That's Actually Failing - 3 of 6 Failed Sterility at 99.8% from tjphuhs@gmail.com on 2026-03-26T15:39:40.000Z are well understood, they have clear pass/fail thresholds, and they’re directly relevant to safety. > But here’s what the real-world data is actually showing: sterility is the test that’s failing more than anything else across vendors right now. > Not at alarming rates. But it’s happening — and it’s happening on batches where everything else looks perfect. > Peptidology jus
Fwd: The Test That's Actually Failing - 3 of 6 Failed Sterility at 99.8%
Score 0.724
· Account tjphuhs@gmail.com
· 3/26/2026, 11:39:40 AM
Fwd: The Test That's Actually Failing - 3 of 6 Failed Sterility at 99.8% from tjphuhs@gmail.com on 2026-03-26T15:39:40.000Z are well understood, they have clear pass/fail thresholds, and they’re directly relevant to safety. > But here’s what the real-world data is actually showing: sterility is the test that’s failing more than anything else across vendors right now. > Not at alarming rates. But it’s happening — and it’s happening on batches where everything else looks perfect. > Peptidology jus
Fwd: Tesamorelin Degradation Data — We're Getting It After All | Peptide Crafters 3-Month Study | Month 1 Sneak Peek
Score 0.722
· Account tjphuhs@gmail.com
· 3/19/2026, 8:53:16 AM
Fwd: Tesamorelin Degradation Data — We're Getting It After All | Peptide Crafters 3-Month Study | Month 1 Sneak Peek from tjphuhs@gmail.com on 2026-03-19T12:53:16.000Z ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Derek from Peptide Price <derekpruski@substack.com> Date: Mar 19, 2026 at 8:37 AM -0400 To: tjphuhs@gmail.com Subject: Tesamorelin Degradation Data — We're Getting It After All | Peptide Crafters 3-Month Study | Month 1 Sneak Peek > I know a lot of you were disappointed when our own de
The Test That's Actually Failing - 3 of 6 Failed Sterility at 99.8%
Score 0.721
· Account tjphuhs@gmail.com
· 3/26/2026, 8:49:21 AM
The Test That's Actually Failing - 3 of 6 Failed Sterility at 99.8% from derekpruski@substack.com on 2026-03-26T12:49:21.000Z View this post on the web at https://derekpruski.substack.com/p/the-test-thats-actually-failing-3 Yesterday I ran a poll asking which test you’d add on top of identification, purity, and net content. 127 votes came in: Endotoxins — 55 votes (43%) Sterility — 50 votes (39%) Heavy Metals — 22 votes (17%) Endotoxins won. And honestly, that’s a reasonable choice — endotoxins
The Test That's Actually Failing - 3 of 6 Failed Sterility at 99.8%
Score 0.710
· Account tjphuhs@gmail.com
· 3/26/2026, 8:49:21 AM
The Test That's Actually Failing - 3 of 6 Failed Sterility at 99.8% from derekpruski@substack.com on 2026-03-26T12:49:21.000Z sterility results? Sterility isn’t a property of the compound itself. MOTS-C doesn’t inherently have bacteria in it. What sterility testing is detecting is contamination — and contamination is not uniform. Think of it like this: if you dropped a single grain of dirt into a swimming pool, some water samples would test positive and some would test negative depending on wher
Fwd: The Test That's Actually Failing - 3 of 6 Failed Sterility at 99.8%
Score 0.701
· Account tjphuhs@gmail.com
· 3/26/2026, 11:39:40 AM
Fwd: The Test That's Actually Failing - 3 of 6 Failed Sterility at 99.8% from tjphuhs@gmail.com on 2026-03-26T15:39:40.000Z What sterility testing is detecting is contamination — and contamination is not uniform. > Think of it like this: if you dropped a single grain of dirt into a swimming pool, some water samples would test positive and some would test negative depending on where you pulled from. The contamination exists somewhere, but it’s not evenly distributed. > A few mechanisms that expla
Fwd: The Test That's Actually Failing - 3 of 6 Failed Sterility at 99.8%
Score 0.701
· Account oc.tjphuhs@gmail.com
· 3/26/2026, 11:39:40 AM
Fwd: The Test That's Actually Failing - 3 of 6 Failed Sterility at 99.8% from tjphuhs@gmail.com on 2026-03-26T15:39:40.000Z What sterility testing is detecting is contamination — and contamination is not uniform. > Think of it like this: if you dropped a single grain of dirt into a swimming pool, some water samples would test positive and some would test negative depending on where you pulled from. The contamination exists somewhere, but it’s not evenly distributed. > A few mechanisms that expla
Fwd: The Test That's Actually Failing - 3 of 6 Failed Sterility at 99.8%
Score 0.698
· Account tjphuhs@gmail.com
· 3/26/2026, 11:39:40 AM
Fwd: The Test That's Actually Failing - 3 of 6 Failed Sterility at 99.8% from tjphuhs@gmail.com on 2026-03-26T15:39:40.000Z be analytically perfect and still have microbial contamination introduced during manufacturing. The argument “if purity is high, everything else is fine” doesn’t hold. > Sterility failures don’t automatically mean a vendor has bad practices. It means contamination is hard to eliminate entirely and even harder to detect consistently. What matters is whether the vendor is tes
Fwd: The Test That's Actually Failing - 3 of 6 Failed Sterility at 99.8%
Score 0.698
· Account oc.tjphuhs@gmail.com
· 3/26/2026, 11:39:40 AM
Fwd: The Test That's Actually Failing - 3 of 6 Failed Sterility at 99.8% from tjphuhs@gmail.com on 2026-03-26T15:39:40.000Z be analytically perfect and still have microbial contamination introduced during manufacturing. The argument “if purity is high, everything else is fine” doesn’t hold. > Sterility failures don’t automatically mean a vendor has bad practices. It means contamination is hard to eliminate entirely and even harder to detect consistently. What matters is whether the vendor is tes
Research Radar Ep. 1: Payments, Peptides & Proper Testing
Score 0.698
· Account tjphuhs@gmail.com
· 4/3/2026, 10:19:48 AM
Research Radar Ep. 1: Payments, Peptides & Proper Testing from derekpruski@substack.com on 2026-04-03T14:19:48.000Z View this post on the web at https://derekpruski.substack.com/p/research-radar-ep-1-payments-peptides Topic 1: Payment processing in the research space One of the most persistent behind-the-scenes headaches for research companies right now is payment processing. Vendors have been cycling through as many as seven different processors trying to find one that’s both reliable and will
Fwd: TB4 vs. TB-500 (and lots of other peptide questions answered)
Score 0.696
· Account oc.tjphuhs@gmail.com
· 3/16/2026, 7:02:31 PM
Fwd: TB4 vs. TB-500 (and lots of other peptide questions answered) from tjphuhs@gmail.com on 2026-03-16T23:02:31.000Z PubMed papers for every compound. There's a quiz at the end, and you get certified when you pass. Whether you're a practitioner, someone deep in the peptide world, or just getting started and want to actually understand what you're putting in your body, this is the course. Get 20% off with code HUNTER20 👉 https://aminoacademy.com/home?am_id=hunter Code: HUNTER20 Go support Sarah
Fwd: TB4 vs. TB-500 (and lots of other peptide questions answered)
Score 0.696
· Account tjphuhs@gmail.com
· 3/16/2026, 7:02:31 PM
Fwd: TB4 vs. TB-500 (and lots of other peptide questions answered) from tjphuhs@gmail.com on 2026-03-16T23:02:31.000Z PubMed papers for every compound. There's a quiz at the end, and you get certified when you pass. Whether you're a practitioner, someone deep in the peptide world, or just getting started and want to actually understand what you're putting in your body, this is the course. Get 20% off with code HUNTER20 👉 https://aminoacademy.com/home?am_id=hunter Code: HUNTER20 Go support Sarah
Fwd: Tesamorelin Degradation Baseline vs Month 1 | Room Temp vs Refrigerated | Peptide Crafters
Score 0.693
· Account tjphuhs@gmail.com
· 3/19/2026, 3:17:25 PM
Fwd: Tesamorelin Degradation Baseline vs Month 1 | Room Temp vs Refrigerated | Peptide Crafters from tjphuhs@gmail.com on 2026-03-19T19:17:25.000Z ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Derek from Peptide Price <derekpruski@substack.com> Date: Mar 19, 2026 at 3:02 PM -0400 To: tjphuhs@gmail.com Subject: Tesamorelin Degradation Baseline vs Month 1 | Room Temp vs Refrigerated | Peptide Crafters > Earlier today I shared a sneak peek at the first month of Peptide Crafters’ Tesamorelin degrada
Peptidology Just Upgraded Their Testing Standard and Their Discount
Score 0.691
· Account tjphuhs@gmail.com
· 4/8/2026, 12:15:30 PM
Peptidology Just Upgraded Their Testing Standard and Their Discount from derekpruski@substack.com on 2026-04-08T16:15:30.000Z is a test a lot of vendors skip entirely. ICP-MS Heavy Metals ICP-MS (Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry) screens for toxic heavy metals: lead, arsenic, cadmium, mercury, and chromium. These can enter a product through the raw materials used in synthesis or through manufacturing equipment. You won’t taste or see them, and they won’t show up on a purity test — wh
Fwd: Past, Present, and Future: How to Verify a Clean Manufacturing Process
Score 0.691
· Account tjphuhs@gmail.com
· 3/26/2026, 1:28:59 PM
Fwd: Past, Present, and Future: How to Verify a Clean Manufacturing Process from tjphuhs@gmail.com on 2026-03-26T17:28:59.000Z is still very undefined. Every company is going to have a different risk tolerance and operate accordingly. Some will opt for USP 71 and accept that tradeoff. Others will stick with USP 61 on the advice of legal counsel. Neither position is inherently wrong — it’s a business decision made in a space where the rules aren’t fully written yet. > What’s worth knowing: the co
Fwd: Past, Present, and Future: How to Verify a Clean Manufacturing Process
Score 0.691
· Account oc.tjphuhs@gmail.com
· 3/26/2026, 1:28:59 PM
Fwd: Past, Present, and Future: How to Verify a Clean Manufacturing Process from tjphuhs@gmail.com on 2026-03-26T17:28:59.000Z is still very undefined. Every company is going to have a different risk tolerance and operate accordingly. Some will opt for USP 71 and accept that tradeoff. Others will stick with USP 61 on the advice of legal counsel. Neither position is inherently wrong — it’s a business decision made in a space where the rules aren’t fully written yet. > What’s worth knowing: the co
Fwd: Past, Present, and Future: How to Verify a Clean Manufacturing Process
Score 0.689
· Account oc.tjphuhs@gmail.com
· 3/26/2026, 1:28:59 PM
Fwd: Past, Present, and Future: How to Verify a Clean Manufacturing Process from tjphuhs@gmail.com on 2026-03-26T17:28:59.000Z 71 > In plain English: “Can we confirm there are absolutely zero viable microorganisms present?” > USP 71 is the sterility test — it goes a step further than USP 61 by attempting to confirm the complete absence of viable microorganisms. This is the standard applied to products intended for injectable research and is used for injectable research compounds, biologics, and
Fwd: Past, Present, and Future: How to Verify a Clean Manufacturing Process
Score 0.689
· Account tjphuhs@gmail.com
· 3/26/2026, 1:28:59 PM
Fwd: Past, Present, and Future: How to Verify a Clean Manufacturing Process from tjphuhs@gmail.com on 2026-03-26T17:28:59.000Z 71 > In plain English: “Can we confirm there are absolutely zero viable microorganisms present?” > USP 71 is the sterility test — it goes a step further than USP 61 by attempting to confirm the complete absence of viable microorganisms. This is the standard applied to products intended for injectable research and is used for injectable research compounds, biologics, and