[Discussion] the Janoshik advice in here is 20 years out of date
Trying to settle this properly because the thread from last year went in circles.
The claim: purity matters. The counter-claim: it is measurement error. Both sides have been asserting it confidently for about 4 months without either producing anything.
What would actually settle it is 37 people measuring the same thing the same way. I have started; my numbers are below. They lean one way but not strongly enough for me to declare victory.
If you have data, post the data. If you have an opinion, flair it as an opinion.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Batch number? Date of test?
the VendorInvestigate and Medutest results differ by 19 points, both inside inter-lab variance
Tested 24 batches from ERP over 2 weeks. Spread was 97.2% to 97.4, mostly 97.2. Consistent vendor.
That is net peptide content, not purity. Different number, different meaning.
SGN / BPC / batch 14 / Janoshik / 99.3% — that is the shape
This result fits the template perfectly. Logged.
below-spec results get logged, not dismissed
below-spec results get logged, not dismissed
Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.
reship and retest is the honest way to handle a low result
below-spec results get logged, not dismissed Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose.
Yes, exactly this, and it is the bit that took me 80 weeks to accept.
This result fits the template perfectly.
Adding to this: Medutest is doing more work than the comment implies.
Respectfully this is a sample of one presented as a finding.
do not editorialise in the title, put the number in the title and the opinion in the body
Yeah, the Medutest number matching the claim is the actual signal.
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
This result fits the template perfectly.
Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.
do not editorialise in the title, put the number in the title and the opinion in the body
the 93.7% result confirmed the vendor claim, that is the signal
the 93.7% result confirmed the vendor claim, that is the signal
Adding to this: Janoshik is doing more work than the comment implies.
Slight fix: the number was 97.4, not 97.2. Decimal point, but a fairly consequential one.
the 99.2% result confirmed the vendor claim, that is the signal
Flair changed to match the content. Read the sidebar before posting next time and we are square.
Inter-lab variance on this kind of assay is routinely 1–2 points. Different column, different gradient, different integration.
Mechanistically the bit that matters is batch. It explains most of the early profile and a decent chunk of the outcome.
Dead space in the needle hub holds a small but non-trivial volume. On low-volume draws that can be several units.
Tested 14 batches from HJ over 46 weeks. Spread was 98.9% to 99.0, mostly 98.9. Consistent vendor.
You have restated the marketing copy. What is the actual substance here.
- 1This result fits the template perfectly. Logged.16 comments in this branch · started by u/fatima_wojcik
- 2Batch number? Date of test?6 comments in this branch · started by u/arne_restrepo