@fullofmuscle said in
[Source]Apexa Labs - Canadian Domestic:
@apexa Explain how your methods aren’t piss poor and endangering the community when you’re sending out caps that are unknowingly 40% overdosed.
Do you think that maybe sending out clen that’s 40% overdosed might be a problem.
Do you think that 40% overdosed lady var might be a problem?
Do you think that 40% overdosed adex and asin might be an issue for people?
Of course I think that is an issue, however, Apexa has not done that. If you have evidence to the contrary, I’d like to see it.
Nothing in the human-produced World is perfect, or mistake free. The best Engineers humanity has ever known can’t build a machine with zero failure points. The best we can do is mitigate, and reduce the chance of, error. For example, a large pharmaceutical company could HPLC/UPLC test every batch they make before releasing for sale (although, even with their billion-dollar budgets, they don’t do this in every case), but obviously small sources on your local gear forum cannot. Or, say how nothing can ever be truly 100% sterile - all you can do is take as many measures as possible to reduce contamination to a minimum. Any given person or organization will have varying ‘tolerance’ to what they will do to minimize risk. For example, I have not seen another lab in Canada use pharmacuetical-grade depyrogenated vials and stoppers, but Apexa does this to further reduce the chance of non-sterility.
I openly admitted that this may have been an error on the part of Apexa. I also openly discussed steps we would take to reduce the chance of error. UGLs love to claim they can be error-free, and just as good as Pharma gear, but this is obviously not true - we simply can’t take as many steps as they do to reduce error. That said, I always strive to do the best that I can, and I don’t make excuses for mistakes, so I’ve done the following in order to improve:
- Sent samples for analysis.
- Analyzed our mixing/capping process and made procedural improvements.
- Created a software-based (using existing software) procedural manual that is locked until previous values/procedures are confirmed. Think of this how an engine builder won’t mark a bolt until it is properly torqued in order to ensure that one bolt (step) isn’t missed.
- Developed a new labelling system that effectively eliminates any chance of swapping error.
- Most importantly, acknowledged that we make mistakes, that this is likely entirely our fault, and that it is unacceptable.
Do you have any constructive input on how else we could improve? I take my ego out of it when trying to solve problems, so I’m genuinely asking. Feel free to email me if you don’t want to post publicly. Keep in mind that we use quality, regularly-calibrated weigh scales, geometric dilution, and V-type mixers already, so this is very likely just a boneheaded math error during mixing (hence the aforementioned software solution).