[Resolved] the QST batch dispute — vendor retested at their own cost, numbers matched, my error
Full timeline, because the accusation was mine and it was loud.
- June: my sema 10mg tested well under the COA. I posted it as a below-spec result and named the vendor.
- Three days later: QST offered to retest the retained sample from batch QST-2506 at their own cost, and to send me both reports regardless of outcome.
- Two weeks later: their retest matched the original COA. So did a second independent test I paid for on a fresh vial from the same batch — 98.4 on Janoshik and 98.2 on PeptideMeter.
- Conclusion: my first sample was mishandled. I had reconstituted it, taken it to a conference in a coat pocket, and brought it home again. I did not mention that in the original post because I had not thought it mattered.
So: my error, my omission, and a vendor that spent money to disprove an accusation and then did not make a marketing campaign out of it.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Marked Resolved at the author's request and logged on the source page with the full sequence.
I want to draw out the part people will skim: the vendor's response is now a permanent positive entry on their record. Handling an accusation well is informative in a way a clean sheet is not, because a clean sheet has never been tested.
"Reconstituted, coat pocket, conference, home again" is the entire explanation and it is a genuinely useful one, because it is the same finding as the 61% thread.
Dry powder tolerates abuse. Reconstituted solution does not. Two days in a coat pocket at body temperature is a far more aggressive exposure than a week in a courier van, and nobody thinks of it that way because it happened at home.
i have written thousands of words about cold chain and i put a mixed vial in a coat. i am not going to pretend that is anything other than embarrassing.
It is also the second accidental data point on real-world reconstituted degradation this quarter, and there is almost none of it published. Crossposting with permission.
i will lend anyone a logger who wants to run their own coat-pocket experiment deliberately. genuinely.
this is the most niche offer on the internet and i want to take you up on it
modmail me. four loggers, all idle, all bored.
the standard everyone should take from this: state what happened to the vial between arrival and testing. "i tested it" hides a lot of variables.
adding a chain-of-custody line to the c/labresults template. arrival date, storage, reconstituted or not, punctures. four fields.
separately and much more mildly: their site photography suggests a bigger operation than members describe. logged as marketing overstatement, not fraud. edit: to be clear that is a different and far smaller complaint than the one this thread retracts.
one gracious vendor response does not offset a bad batch record
there was no bad batch. that is the finding of the thread. their results cluster at 98.0–98.5 across four entries.
- 1"Reconstituted, coat pocket, conference, home again" is the entire…6 comments in this branch · started by u/coldchain_karen