[Confirmed] recycled COA PDF — same producer string, same timestamp, three vendors
Trying to settle this properly because the thread from last year went in circles.
The claim: fake COA matters. The counter-claim: it is measurement error. Both sides have been asserting it confidently for about 9 months without either producing anything.
What would actually settle it is 33 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
Dated screenshot or is this from memory?
the batch number appearing across three vendors is a red flag
Water content matters more than people think. If a vial is carrying residual moisture, your "10mg" is not 10mg of peptide.
Inter-lab variance on this kind of assay is routinely 1–2 points. Different column, different gradient, different integration.
Half-life is about 168 hours, so steady state lands around week 2–5. Practical consequence: what you feel in week 1 is not what that dose does.
Retitled to remove editorialising. Put the evidence in the body.
Retitled to remove editorialising.
Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.
[removed by moderator]
PDF metadata is checkable in fifteen seconds
- 1Retitled to remove editorialising. Put the evidence in the body.4 comments in this branch · started by u/whois_wanda