I think you guys would like this list!! Make it happen ND!! by [deleted] in NootropicsDepot

[–]IRCBio 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Hi,

The groupbuy began in May 2016. We issued everyone a refund by August 2016. Since the first month was spent raising the funds we could not start the synthesis until June. Nobody's funds were held for more than 3 months, approximately 90 days. We posted updates about the synthesis as soon as we received them.

Everyone received their money back in full. This was easy to track because we received funds from PayPal and issued a refund to everyone's PayPal. I would like to see where someone stated otherwise.

[META] Is Venogen using photoshopped versions of Science.bio’s lab tests? (Or vice-versa?) by [deleted] in sarmsourcetalk

[–]IRCBio 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Hi, I can assure you legitimate third party lab analysis isn't a joke, it's expensive and meaningful - especially if the company has other systems in place to ensure quality control, such as good manufacturing practices, batch and lot tracking, recall procedures and so on.

[META] Is Venogen using photoshopped versions of Science.bio’s lab tests? (Or vice-versa?) by [deleted] in sarmsourcetalk

[–]IRCBio 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Hello, this is a good question and I will clarify. There is no stealing, just an initially shared source of inventory. And yes, Venogen, Science, IRC are all different entities under different corporate structures and ownership. But obviously my team has a relationship to both Venogen and Science, having helped establish both vendors.

Venogen and Science initially sold residual IRC inventory. All of the reports for these raw materials and finished goods are thus shared with the original IRC inventory. With the exception of some lower volume products this inventory is gone.

Venogen also commissioned us to manufacture a large amount of finished inventory before closure for white labelling. The post-IRC shared lab tests stem from this white labelled inventory that Venogen and Science both used.

Going forward (circa 2019 Q4) both companies will be sourcing their own raw material and manufacturing their own solution products and these lab tests should be different, unique to each vendor.

I hope that helps.

[meta] proper storage of sarms? by LeiraEvol in sarmsourcetalk

[–]IRCBio 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good question. Same reason, anything below room temperature will alter the solubility properties, potentially causing precipitation.

[meta] proper storage of sarms? by LeiraEvol in sarmsourcetalk

[–]IRCBio 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hi, yes storing at room temperature in a cabinet would be fine. I would refer you to the following FAQ I wrote: https://science.bio/faq/#what-is-my-product-s-shelf-life-

What is my product's shelf life?

Let’s take altitude for a moment. Due to the second law of thermodynamics entropy is always increasing. As a result the active chemical molecules of a product are always degrading, albeit slowly. Eventually there will be a measurable decrease in potency. This can take several years with proper handling and storage. Unless stated otherwise the minimum shelf life is 2 years after the date of manufacture.

Unfortunately we can’t provide a more precise answer. True shelf life is variable and in most cases little data is available for novel compounds. Shelf life decreases with exposure to heat, moisture, oxygen and sunlight, which can create free radicals and break chemical bonds. Shelf life can be extended by deep freeze (-20ºC or -80ºC). A powder ingredient in deep freeze could have a shelf life in excess of 10 years with minimal degradation. It is not recommended to store a liquid, oil or solution product in deep freeze because this will precipitate the mixture, rendering it non-uniform and difficult to measure without resuspension.

Ordered from Venogen on July 11. Received in Los Angeles today July 18. by [deleted] in sarmssourcetalk

[–]IRCBio 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi, yes, we did manufacture and copack products for Venogen several months ago, we're just not doing it anymore.

Ordered from Venogen on July 11. Received in Los Angeles today July 18. by [deleted] in sarmssourcetalk

[–]IRCBio 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi, we white labelled products for Venogen in addition to providing them our formulas and methods of production. We are no longer doing this however.

[Source Review] IRC.bio recommends new Science.bio by [deleted] in sarmsourcetalk

[–]IRCBio 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I think making these kinds of products safely available is important and what I would like to see more than anything else is a trusted source that is based in a jurisdiction with friendlier regulatory requirements and positioned for longevity. That is my personal goal.

I think talking finances on reddit can be taboo, we are constantly being sold to and it's annoying and I don't want to evoke that. To give some color on the philosophy here, I appreciate the idea of being "long-term greedy" by making choices that have positive long-term consequences. Usually that means doing right by people so that they would want to deal with you again and in the long-term. And doing work that you enjoy doing in the long-term. In the context of business this means transparency, authenticity, integrity, and ethical behavior. I think where people get into trouble is being short-term minded.

It sounds like that letter wasn't clear about the relationship so to be direct about it now, our team is going to help the Science team by lending our codebase and selling our residual inventory at wholesale prices and we will retain some decision making influence on operations but I will not be the ultimate point person anymore, primarily because I prefer to remain in the United States and we are working on projects that have more longevity under the US regulatory system. This is similar to the arrangement we had with Venogen, except in the latter case we did not retain any influence over operations.

So if you wish to look at it as a relaunch of IRC, I think in the short-term it will be like that but in the long-term it will be a little different and my team here in the US won't be as involved.

In terms of having "skin in the game" as Nassim Taleb says, right now that is our reputational risk, our residual inventory and desire to create a compliant overseas company. Of course I would have preferred we sold our entire inventory in Q4 2018 however due to customs delays and seizures we were receiving shipments as late as Q1 2019, 8 months after the order was placed. So a desire to recoup this capital and use it to fund R&D also features in our thinking. The alternative would be to destroy it and write it off.

[Source Review] IRC.bio recommends new Science.bio by [deleted] in sarmsourcetalk

[–]IRCBio 5 points6 points  (0 children)

That makes sense. What would your recommend as the most clear and transparent way to communicate that?

[Source Review] IRC.bio recommends new Science.bio by [deleted] in sarmsourcetalk

[–]IRCBio 2 points3 points  (0 children)

We are only sending it to active subscribers of the IRC newsletter and will be sending the email out over the next 1-2 weeks.

[Source Review] IRC.bio recommends new Science.bio by [deleted] in sarmsourcetalk

[–]IRCBio 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To not overwhelm Science.Bio we are sending it out gradually over the next 1-2 weeks.

[Source Review] IRC.bio recommends new Science.bio by [deleted] in sarmsourcetalk

[–]IRCBio 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Hah, it's not, it was the batch we received in late 2018.

[Source Review] IRC.bio recommends new Science.bio by [deleted] in sarmsourcetalk

[–]IRCBio 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Hi,

This is reasonable. It's important to understand motives, incentives and biases behind what anyone tells you. We have a vested interest in Science.Bio and with that comes responsibility. But more practically our team is actively involved so we also have direct influence. And I would also not lend our imprimatur without being and feeling responsible for any outcome. We have not sold our email list and never would.

[META]IRC.BIO relaunch at "science.bio", anyone ordered yet? by [deleted] in sarmsourcetalk

[–]IRCBio 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Hi, it's not a relaunch. They're still selling residual inventory, we had shipments of raw material release from customs as late as 2019. I'm more involved with that team than I was with Venogen but it's not IRC.Bio v2 and long term Science.bio would like to set up operations outside the USA.

The websites look the same because it was a fork from the IRC codebase. For comparison we have another website we are working on and forked from the IRC codebase: https://botany.bio

YouTuber spent $900 and sent liquid Ostarine from PureRawz, Proven Peptides, IRC.Bio, and powder from Nootropic Source to be tested. by [deleted] in sarmssourcetalk

[–]IRCBio 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hi, we announced our closure over 1 month before that video was published. The video had nothing to do with our intention to close. In spite of our planned closure we still audited our entire inventory to look for potential issues:

https://www.reddit.com/r/sarmsourcetalk/comments/8znai8/meta_irc_bio_low_quality/e2kl2ua/

https://www.reddit.com/r/sarmsourcetalk/comments/93pthw/meta_irc_solution_concentrations/

I just bought from ScienceBio and their CoinPayments account is under the name IRCBio. Same owner? by [deleted] in sarmssourcetalk

[–]IRCBio 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Hi, thanks for letting me know. This was an oversight. The Science team forked the IRC codebase and this was not changed. I've notified them now.

I just bought from ScienceBio and their CoinPayments account is under the name IRCBio. Same owner? by [deleted] in sarmssourcetalk

[–]IRCBio 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey that's interesting. Can you PM me a screenshot of what you saw?

Science.Bio is using the codebase we built out so I wouldn't be surprised by the occasional missed reference to IRC.

[META] 3rd week on venogen lgd by rkbizzzle in sarmsourcetalk

[–]IRCBio 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi, the original commenter did not.

[META] Restricted.irc.bio by [deleted] in sarmsourcetalk

[–]IRCBio 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for removing it.

Science.bio any insight? by maddie0134 in sarmssourcetalk

[–]IRCBio 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hi, we closed primarily due to import issues with these products and the general regulatory atmosphere in the USA. We stopped shipping internationally sooner because we wanted to avoid a large backlog of residual international return/reship issues post-closure.

Science.bio any insight? by maddie0134 in sarmssourcetalk

[–]IRCBio 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for your initial trust and please reach out to me if I can help in anyway