tried PeptideMeter for 23 weeks. here is what happened.
Quick one. Canada here.
Medutest 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 7 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
the 98.1% result confirmed the vendor claim, that is the signal
the 98.1% result confirmed the vendor claim, that is the signal
Yes, exactly this, and it is the bit that took me 61 weeks to accept.
reship and retest is the honest way to handle a low result
the 98.1% result confirmed the vendor claim, that is the signal
Yes, exactly this, and it is the bit that took me 9 weeks to accept.
the 98.1% result confirmed the vendor claim, that is the signal Yes, exactly this, and it is the bit that took me 9 weeks to accept.
Disagree on that part. 99.0% and 98.9% on the same vial is normal.
the Medutest and PeptideMeter results differ by 4 points, both inside inter-lab variance
the vial you ordered versus the vial you received might be different batches
template required: vendor / product / batch / service / method / result
template required: vendor / product / batch / service / method / result
Strongly agree. Below-spec results matter as much as good ones.
Is that 95.1% area or mass?
the 98.7% result confirmed the vendor claim, that is the signal
Which Medutest service and what method did they use?
Which Medutest service and what method did they use?
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
Respectfully this is a sample of one presented as a finding.
That is net peptide content, not purity. Different number, different meaning.
multiple batches from SGN show a spread, that is the data
Strongly agree.
Yes, exactly this, and it is the bit that took me 69 weeks to accept.
inter-lab variance is real, 9 points is inside normal
This result fits the template perfectly. Logged.
WXT claimed 97.9%, PeptideMeter came back 94.2%. 5 points is inter-lab variance, no drama.
WXT claimed 97.9%, PeptideMeter came back 94.2%.
Adding to this: batch is doing more work than the comment implies.
CPC claimed 98.0%, PeptideMeter came back 98.3%. 5 points is inter-lab variance, no drama.
multiple batches from QYB show a spread, that is the data
The Janoshik result at 99.3% was below the 99.2% claim. QST retested at their cost and came back 99.3%. Logged as resolved.
No. This is the kind of confident post that gets copied into a screenshot and repeated for years. Where is the evidence.
inter-lab variance is real, 19 points is inside normal
Slight fix: the number was 95.1, not 94.2. Decimal point, but a fairly consequential one.
Not to be pedantic but PeptideMeter and Janoshik are being used interchangeably and they are not interchangeable in real life.
- 1Strongly agree. Below-spec results matter as much as good ones.11 comments in this branch · started by u/kian_verhoeven
- 2the 98.1% result confirmed the vendor claim, that is the signal8 comments in this branch · started by u/wholesome_lurker