Semax for Sale: 10 mg, One Lot Code, Two Certificates

A tidy listing and a trustworthy listing look the same from a distance. The difference is which of these eight fields carry a number rather than an adjective.

Note which fields cost a vendor money. Form, quantity and storage are free to print. Purity, identity, endotoxin and sterility are laboratory invoices, which is why the thin listings converge on the free ones and use a badge for the rest.

The product on offer is dry powder in a sealed vial, red cap, silver crimp, labelled 10 mg. Dry matters for two reasons that show up later in the arithmetic: it has not started its shelf clock in solution, and it lets you choose the concentration rather than inherit one.

The quantity line is the field almost nobody checks and the one that moves the price most. A label is a target; a certificate reports what a laboratory weighed. Both published Semax documents report more than the label promises.

Say the obvious thing plainly: an overfill is a property of a batch on a date, not a term of sale. Nothing on the listing commits to 11.23 mg, and the two assayed lots differ from each other by 1.11 mg, which is 11% of a label. Compare suppliers on $3.00 and treat $2.67 as what one box turned out to hold. The same exercise on a compound where no vendor publishes a measured mass at all is on our BPC-157 listing guide.

This is the field that decides which of the other fields you actually have, because the listing publishes two certificates from two laboratories and they do not test the same things.

The February document is a good purity and identity certificate. It answers what the powder is and how much of it there is, and stops. The June document answers those and then the contamination questions on top. A listing showing only the better one while shipping the other batch is technically accurate and practically useless, so the instruction is the same on every product of this kind: read the certificate whose lot number matches your vial. Our Selank listing guide works through the identical two-certificate arrangement on the neighbouring compound.

FDA's documented concern with this compound is immunogenicity arising from aggregation and peptide-related impurities. Chromatography addresses the impurities half, which is why purity with a peak list beats a bare percentage. Endotoxin and microbial testing address the contamination that compounds the risk, and they are the two lines almost no research listing carries.

The June endotoxin page is detailed enough to check: a quantitative bacterial endotoxin test, kinetic chromogenic LAL, compendial reference USP Chapter 85, detection range 0.01 to 1.0 EU/mL, E. coli O111:B4 as the endotoxin standard, 2.0 mL dilution volume, positive and negative controls both passing, final determination PASS at under 0.20 EU/mL against an acceptance limit of 0.5 EU/mL or less.

One inconsistency is worth flagging, because reading a certificate properly means noticing the parts that disagree. The page header, the methodology reference and the interpretation all describe a kinetic chromogenic assay, while the assay type field on the same page reads kinetic turbidimetric. Both are legitimate LAL methods under USP Chapter 85 and both are quantitative, so the result stands either way, but a field contradicting its own document is exactly the sort of thing a buyer should notice and a vendor should tidy up.

The sterility line comes with its own honest limit, printed on the document rather than hidden: it is a rapid screen, two days at 30 to 35 C, and the report states that full compendial testing to USP Chapter 71 may be required for regulatory compliance. It is quality control, not a sterility release.

Reading a listing well means separating the fields that bind a seller from the fields that merely inform you. Four things on this page look like commitments and are not.

• The overfill. 11.23 mg is a measurement of one batch by one laboratory on one day. The sale is of a vial labelled 10 mg, and the next batch may weigh differently, as the 1.11 mg spread between the two published lots already shows.
• The testing scope. The certificate library shows what has been tested historically. It does not commit the vendor to running an endotoxin assay on every future batch, and the February lot is the proof that it has not always happened.
• The condition on arrival. A certificate covers a sampled aliquot on a date. The June endotoxin result was generated on 29 May 2026, before filling, capping, storage and transit. Lyophilised powder is forgiving of a warm van in a way a solution is not, which is part of why the dry format is worth preferring.
• Anything about use. The copy states plainly that the material is research only and not approved for human use, and that is not boilerplate to skip past. It is the same sentence FDA's position rests on.

None of that makes the listing worse than its competitors. It makes it a listing rather than a guarantee, which is the correct thing to expect from a market where the regulator has said it lacks the information to judge the compound at all.

A listing is only finished when it produces a number you can carry to another listing. Here is the full division, including the part that happens after the box is open. This is laboratory handling arithmetic and nothing else.

The tiers apply to the list price, so a 10% bulk discount does not approach a 50% code, and nothing on the listing documents whether the two combine. Treat the cart total as the only authority. The other half, what a U-100 barrel can and cannot resolve at 5 mg/mL, is covered in our syringe measurement guide, and the volume decision itself in the reconstitution guide.