Janoshik is the most under-discussed thing in c/sideeffects
Right, the PeptideMeter question again, but with numbers this time.
I have 4 data points over 20 weeks. The pattern is consistent enough that I do not think it is chance, and boring enough that nobody is going to screenshot it, which is usually a good sign.
The thing I would flag for anyone new: the effect I am describing showed up at week 81, not week 35. People give up long before the interesting part.
Interested in whether this matches other people's logs or whether I am an outlier.
best — the order this archive was captured in
the 98.7% result confirmed the vendor claim, that is the signal
[deleted]
template required: vendor / product / batch / service / method / result
Yeah, the PeptideMeter number matching the claim is the actual signal.
I am going to push back on this slightly.
Retitled to remove editorialising. Put the evidence in the body.
below-spec results get logged, not dismissed
multiple batches from WXT show a spread, that is the data
below-spec results get logged, not dismissed
Disagree on that part. 97.4% and 98.3% on the same vial is normal.
Every time this gets posted it hits the front page and every time someone has to re-explain it.
Crossposting this to c/coa because the people who need it are not reading this community.
Strongly agree. Below-spec results matter as much as good ones.
below-spec results get logged, not dismissed
This result fits the template perfectly. Logged.
do not editorialise in the title, put the number in the title and the opinion in the body
below-spec results get logged, not dismissed
testing the vendor claim versus testing your actual vial are two different posts
Which VendorInvestigate service and what method did they use?
do not editorialise in the title, put the number in the title and the opinion in the body
Strongly agree. Below-spec results matter as much as good ones.
Not to be pedantic but test results and Medutest are being used interchangeably and they are not interchangeable in real life.
You have restated the marketing copy. What is the actual substance here.
My Janoshik result matched the vendor COA exactly, which is rare. GGPeps deserves that note in the directory.
testing the vendor claim versus testing your actual vial are two different posts
This is the "correlation is mechanism" thing again. You changed three variables at once.
Batch number? Date of test?
Batch number?
Disagree on that part. 98.1% and 98.3% on the same vial is normal.
- 1the 98.7% result confirmed the vendor claim, that is the signal9 comments in this branch · started by u/tuva_kirchner
- 2Which VendorInvestigate service and what method did they use?5 comments in this branch · started by u/jonas_cardoso