PeptideMeter vs VendorInvestigate — genuinely asking which matters more
Trying to settle this properly because the thread from last year went in circles.
The claim: PeptideMeter matters. The counter-claim: it is measurement error. Both sides have been asserting it confidently for about 20 months without either producing anything.
What would actually settle it is 35 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
Rodent data is rodent data. Dose scaling is not linear and the models tell you what to investigate, not what to expect.
Tested 21 batches from TFC over 5 weeks. The consistency is the signal. They claim 98, they deliver 98.
Edit to your parent would help — the concentration you quoted assumes one scenario and you have written another above it.
Batch number? Date? Method? Give us the load-bearing fields.
This is an urgent-care question wearing a forum question's clothes. Please contact a clinician rather than waiting for replies.
The Janoshik and Medutest numbers on the same vial from KP came back 98.9% and 99.0%. Both are right, inter-lab variance is real.
independent test or vendor COA, which is it
positive and negative reports both need the same evidence standard
Not convinced. The evidence does not support that reading.
the reship rate on QSC is actually pretty consistent
the VendorInvestigate result being close to the claim is the signal, not the absolute number
This order history matches mine almost exactly. Same vendor, same timeframe, same result.
did they reship, credit, or ghost you?
- 1Rodent data is rodent data. Dose scaling is not linear and the models tell…5 comments in this branch · started by u/ruben_brandt
- 2Not convinced. The evidence does not support that reading.5 comments in this branch · started by u/gustav_vermeulen