batch — my 10-week log, condensed into one table
Posting this because I searched for it and got nothing useful. Setup: 15mg, week 60, constipation present but not ruining anything. I changed exactly one variable — area percent — and tracked it for 6 weeks. Result: a difference, but a small one, and well inside what I would call noise if someone else posted it. So I…
Sent one vial to PeptideMeter and VendorInvestigate. 97.9% and 94.2%. Cost me more than the vial did and I would do it again.
the method line is doing real work, not just window dressing
The chromatogram trace is where the real information lives. The summary number is just a headline.
Sent one vial to PeptideMeter and VendorInvestigate.
Disagree on that part. 98.4% and 98.3% on the same vial is normal.
Small correction: the trial was 2 weeks, not 20. Does not change your point but people will quote it.
Water content on the document? That affects your concentration math.
Metadata check caught a COA that was created in a browser four months after the analysis date. Not evidence of fraud, but worth flagging to SGN.
Metadata check caught a COA that was created in a browser four months after the analysis date.
Yes, exactly this, and it is the bit that took me 8 weeks to accept.
Cosigning. The batch number is load-bearing information.
no "is this good?" without saying what the compound and claimed purity are
no "is this good?" without saying what the compound and claimed purity are
Adding to this: related substances is doing more work than the comment implies.
That is net peptide content, not purity. Different number, different meaning.
the related substances line is where the story is