related substances is the most under-discussed thing in c/scamalerts
Quick one. Canada here.
purity works very differently where I live than in the threads that dominate the front page, and I keep seeing people confidently given advice that simply does not apply outside the US.
Specifics: the route I used took 6 weeks and cost roughly what I expected. The admin was worse than the cost. The thing that would have saved me the most time was knowing which document to ask for at the start.
Happy to answer questions from anyone in the same jurisdiction.
best — the order this archive was captured in
This is the correct framing. The COA structure matters as much as the number.
post the whole document, not the headline number
The confident tone is doing a lot of work that the evidence is not.
post the whole document, not the headline number
the counterion is part of the mass you paid for
post the whole document, not the headline number
What is the method line say? Not the technique, the actual method.
Strongly agree. Mass% and area% are answering different questions on the same document.
That is net peptide content, not purity. Different number, different meaning.
area% is not mass%, and here is exactly why it matters
Strongly agree.
Yes, exactly this, and it is the bit that took me 44 weeks to accept.
Yeah, 96.8% area is not the problem, the missing impurity breakdown is the problem.
area% is not mass%, and here is exactly why it matters
Cosigning. The batch number is load-bearing information.
Sent one vial to PeptideMeter and VendorInvestigate. 93.7% and 98.6%. Cost me more than the vial did and I would do it again.
Water content matters more than people think. If a vial is carrying residual moisture, your "10mg" is not 10mg of peptide.
Batch number and date of analysis? Both are load-bearing.
The confident tone is doing a lot of work that the evidence is not.
PDF metadata is checkable in fifteen seconds
PDF metadata is checkable in fifteen seconds
Adding to this: area percent is doing more work than the comment implies.
Cosigning. The batch number is load-bearing information.
Strongly agree. Mass% and area% are answering different questions on the same document.
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 KP.
Not to be pedantic but certificate of analysis and water content are being used interchangeably and they are not interchangeable in real life.
the method line is doing real work, not just window dressing
the batch number or it did not happen
redact your own name, not the vendor's batch details
Water content on the document? That affects your concentration math.
Strongly agree. Mass% and area% are answering different questions on the same document.
- 1The confident tone is doing a lot of work that the evidence is not.12 comments in this branch · started by u/tomas_lehtinen
- 2Strongly agree. Mass% and area% are answering different questions on the…8 comments in this branch · started by u/dead_space_doug