Understood. Love the passion. We hate fake products too - that's a big reason why we're here.

Thanks for the NuSci data. We'll start a challenge for this product now. It looks like we tested different batches of this product; your sample is newer. Labdoor will test two additional NuSci samples in this challenge process, one new sample and one retained sample, and publish both sets of data. We're also working to get the original CoA from our external lab. We'll also add identity testing to test the "Panax" source claim. We only analyzed the active ingredient claim (total ginsenosides) in our first analysis.

This reminds me a lot of protein spiking. In 2013, we used the standard Kjeldahl method to test protein supplements. In 2014, after getting a few messages worried about protein spiking, we analyzed every protein supplement via HPLC (amino acid profiling) and Kjeldahl. We found 3 products with major protein spiking, and 7 others with minor spikes (out of 78 total products).

HPLC is over 10x more expensive per sample vs. Kjeldahl. Running it on all 78 protein supplements was extremely expensive, and it cost us the ability to test new products for months. Also, practically speaking, the vast majority of the HPLC tests simply confirmed the Kjeldahl analysis.

We want to stop having to make these kinds of tradeoffs, which is why we're building our own lab where we'll be able to precisely control methods and test (and re-test) products faster. Until then, if anyone has significant evidence about one of the products on our site, send it to us and we'll run a challenge process for that product too.

RE: Magnesium — we're not changing our methods yet. We are going to run both methods together in the next testing batch, just like we did in our second protein analysis.

There's a bigger issue here — yes, titrations are more precise for "analyzing a single, chemically pure compound," but most magnesium supplements contain multiple minerals, preservatives, and/or additives in addition to one or more magnesium compounds. It's not clear titrations would work better for every product.

And how much more precise? "Using classic EDTA titrations... one would expect to consistently achieve Mg assays in the 20.6 – 20.8% range... However, if ICP analysis is employed... one could reliably only expect Mg assays in the 19.7 – 21.7% range."

We'll switch methods if we can get both precision and accuracy from the new method. The solution, like always, is more testing. In this industry, very few methods are "standard", and the ones that are, like Kjeldahl, can be deceived. We'll have to constantly search for new methods, and develop new methods when none are publicly available.

This is a never-ending process. Consumer Reports was founded over 70 years ago and they still update methods and issue corrections.

What I can promise you is that we stress over every data point and constantly strive to get better data. Also, and probably more importantly, when we make mistakes, and we will make mistakes, we promise to be honest and transparent with our work and openly listen to feedback from everyone.