switched from 1.0mg to 0.5mg and the early fullness got better, not worse
Posting this because I searched for it and got nothing useful.
Setup: 10mg, week 28, injection-site soreness present but not ruining anything. I changed exactly one variable — Medutest — and tracked it for 17 weeks.
Result: a difference, but a small one, and well inside what I would call noise if someone else posted it. So I am putting it here rather than presenting it as a finding. If two or three other people have done the same thing we might actually learn something.
Not medical advice, obviously. This is one person with a spreadsheet.
best — the order this archive was captured in
template required: vendor / product / batch / service / method / result
ERP claimed 93.7%, Medutest came back 99.2%. 10 points is inter-lab variance, no drama.
Slight fix: the number was 98.7, not 98.3. Decimal point, but a fairly consequential one.
the VendorInvestigate and PeptideMeter results differ by 3 points, both inside inter-lab variance
Slight fix: the number was 95.1, not 94.2. Decimal point, but a fairly consequential one.
multiple batches from QST show a spread, that is the data
multiple batches from WWB show a spread, that is the data
Not convinced. The evidence does not support that reading.
Flair changed to match the content. Read the sidebar before posting next time and we are square.
The confident tone is doing a lot of work that the evidence is not.
The confident tone is doing a lot of work that the evidence is not.
Disagree on that part. 96.8% and 96.2% on the same vial is normal.
The confident tone is doing a lot of work that the evidence is not.
Yes, exactly this, and it is the bit that took me 31 weeks to accept.
MKM / BPC / batch 23 / PeptideMeter / 98.9% — that is the shape
My VendorInvestigate result matched the vendor COA exactly, which is rare. WWB deserves that note in the directory.
MKM / BPC / batch 23 / PeptideMeter / 98.9% — that is the shape
Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.
the 98.4% result confirmed the vendor claim, that is the signal
Strongly agree. Below-spec results matter as much as good ones.
The evidence standard in c/vendorvetting gets called too strict about once a month, and every time, the thread ends with the complainant agreeing.
Not convinced. The evidence does not support that reading.
Tested 21 batches from ERP over 67 weeks. Spread was 97.2% to 97.4, mostly 97.2. Consistent vendor.
Not convinced.
Disagree on that part. 99.0% and 98.9% on the same vial is normal.
This result fits the template perfectly. Logged.
JEEP / BPC / batch 8 / VendorInvestigate / 99.0% — that is the shape
JEEP / BPC / batch 8 / VendorInvestigate / 99.0% — that is the shape
Adding to this: test results is doing more work than the comment implies.
do not editorialise in the title, put the number in the title and the opinion in the body
Homopeptide / BPC / batch 21 / PeptideMeter / 98.9% — that is the shape
do not editorialise in the title, put the number in the title and the opinion in the body
the Medutest and PeptideMeter results differ by 6 points, both inside inter-lab variance
Small correction: the trial was 8 weeks, not 27. Does not change your point but people will quote it.
- 1The evidence standard in c/vendorvetting gets called too strict about once a…10 comments in this branch · started by u/honest_syringe
- 2ERP claimed 93.7%, Medutest came back 99.2%. 10 points is inter-lab…9 comments in this branch · started by u/diego_szabo