GLPHubglpresearchhub.com
Read-only archive. GLP Research Hub is a static community record — nothing here is for sale, no account is needed, and no vote you cast is counted. Why?
Archived. This submission is more than a year old. Votes and new comments are closed, and some of the advice in it may have been superseded — check the community wiki for the current version.
2.9k
c/labresults·posted 1 year ago by u/phase_two_pete

[Question] how do you actually verify batch

Janoshik Receipts ×1 Sourced ×2 Cold Box ×2

I have had 24 orders now and I keep a table, so here is the honest summary rather than a vibe.

Material has been consistent. Communication has not. Shipping has varied by about 16 days on nominally the same lane, which matters more in summer than in February.

The independent number came back 98.4% against a claimed 97.2%, which I read as agreement rather than a discrepancy — inter-lab variance on this assay is a point or two either way and treating one lab as ground truth is how people end up in pointless arguments with vendors.

Batch number is in the comments. Ask if you want the method.

3,127 up / 259 down92% upvoted39 commentsid 1k3ewn28 Oct 2024

39 comments

30 in this archive, depth 5

best — the order this archive was captured in

u/aussie_pbs_watchAU432 points·1 year ago

the VendorInvestigate and PeptideMeter results differ by 9 points, both inside inter-lab variance

replysharereportpermalink
u/mod_ambulatoryadmin513 points·1 year ago

I am going to push back on this slightly.

replysharereportpermalink
[deleted]193 points·1 year ago

[deleted]

replysharereportpermalink
u/slow_logbook_ftw633 points·1 year ago

sample of one, say so

replysharereportpermalink
u/phase_two_peteOP446 points·1 year ago

below-spec results get logged, not dismissed

replysharereportpermalink
u/yara_bakken367 points·1 year ago

multiple batches from SSA show a spread, that is the data

replysharereportpermalink
u/janoshik_junkieMOD459 points·1 year ago

Removed a chain here. The rule is one line long and it is not negotiable.

replysharereportpermalink
u/enzo_fonseca158 points·1 year ago

Removed a chain here.

Disagree on that part. 99.0% and 98.9% on the same vial is normal.

replysharereportpermalink
u/mateusz_mensah272 points·1 year ago

Respectfully this is a sample of one presented as a finding.

replysharereportpermalink
u/phase_two_peteOP124 points·1 year ago

GGPeps product, VendorInvestigate test, 96.8% result, batch 14, 29 days in transit. Logged.

replysharereportpermalink
u/mei_cardoso113 points·1 year ago·edited

Yeah, the Medutest number matching the claim is the actual signal.

replysharereportpermalink
u/meera_sandvik284 points·1 year ago

This result fits the template perfectly. Logged.

replysharereportpermalink
u/refund_ledger208 points·1 year ago

This result fits the template perfectly. Logged.

replysharereportpermalink
u/phase_two_peteOP158 points·1 year ago

KP product, Medutest test, 97.6% result, batch 22, 22 days in transit. Logged.

replysharereportpermalink
u/refund_ledger76 points·1 year ago

Homopeptide / BPC / batch 19 / PeptideMeter / 99.3% — that is the shape

replysharereportpermalink
u/ismael_nwosu33 points·1 year ago

Homopeptide / BPC / batch 19 / PeptideMeter / 99.3% — that is the shape

Yes, exactly this, and it is the bit that took me 57 weeks to accept.

replysharereportpermalink
u/meera_sandvik-23 points·1 year ago

Respectfully this is a sample of one presented as a finding.

replysharereportpermalink
u/teodor_jansen1 point·1 year ago

multiple batches from SWB show a spread, that is the data

replysharereportpermalink
u/boots_or_bust1 point·1 year ago

Which VendorInvestigate service and what method did they use?

replysharereportpermalink
u/asks_dumb_questions114 points·1 year ago

Batch number? Date of test?

replysharereportpermalink
u/aksel_jansen247 points·1 year ago

the Medutest and PeptideMeter results differ by 2 points, both inside inter-lab variance

replysharereportpermalink
u/jonas_cardoso301 points·1 year ago

the Medutest and PeptideMeter results differ by 2 points, both inside inter-lab variance

Disagree on that part. 97.4% and 99.2% on the same vial is normal.

replysharereportpermalink
u/medutest_mel74 points·1 year ago

I am going to push back on this slightly.

replysharereportpermalink
u/ffmi_watcher145 points·1 year ago

Strongly agree. Below-spec results matter as much as good ones.

replysharereportpermalink
u/aurel_mwangi77 points·1 year ago

the VendorInvestigate and PeptideMeter results differ by 2 points, both inside inter-lab variance

replysharereportpermalink
u/medutest_mel0 points·1 year ago

template required: vendor / product / batch / service / method / result

replysharereportpermalink
u/katrin_diallo1 point·1 year ago

Batch number? Date of test?

replysharereportpermalink
u/lina_almeida43 points·1 year ago·edited

the Medutest and PeptideMeter results differ by 23 points, both inside inter-lab variance

replysharereportpermalink
u/elise_ramos35 points·1 year ago·edited

the Medutest and PeptideMeter results differ by 23 points, both inside inter-lab variance

Disagree on that part. 98.7% and 98.9% on the same vial is normal.

replysharereportpermalink
u/saskia_mwangi258 points·1 year ago

This result fits the template perfectly. Logged.

replysharereportpermalink
Permalinked branches
Deep branches get their own page so a single reply chain can be linked and read on its own.
About c/labresults

A running record of independent test results people paid for themselves. Every post follows the same shape: vendor, product, batch, testing service, method, and the number. Good results and bad results are equally welcome and get equal scrutiny.

44kmembers
95submissions
Oct 2023created
submissions / month, last year
Sponsored

PeptideMeter Analytics

Independent testing plus vendor-level trend data. Community-funded, unaffiliated.

peptidemeter.com
c/labresults rules
  1. Template required: vendor / product / batch / service / method / result. Freeform posts get removed with a template reply.
  2. Do not editorialise in the title. Put the number in the title and the opinion in the body.
  3. Sample of one. Say so.
  4. Independent community. Nobody here sells anything, and anyone who tries is banned.
  5. Not medical advice. Describe what you did; never prescribe to a stranger.
  6. Claims need evidence. Batch numbers, dated screenshots, independent test reports, or a citation.
  7. No referral links, discount codes or affiliate URLs. Permanent ban, no appeal.
  8. No contact handles, wallet addresses or tracking numbers — they identify people.
  9. Be recognisably decent. Disagree hard, insult nobody.
Moderators
Volunteers. Unpaid, unaffiliated, and reachable through modmail only.
Before you read on

Several compounds discussed on GLP Research Hub are sold for research use only and are not approved for human use anywhere. Nothing here is medical advice and none of it is written by your clinician. If a post reads like an instruction, treat it as a description of what one stranger did.