vendor vs testing — genuinely asking which matters more
Trying to settle this properly because the thread from last year went in circles.
The claim: vendor matters. The counter-claim: it is measurement error. Both sides have been asserting it confidently for about 19 months without either producing anything.
What would actually settle it is 19 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
Half-life is about 168 hours, so steady state lands around week 3–5. Practical consequence: what you feel in week 1 is not what that dose does.
Not convinced. The evidence does not support that reading.
Inter-lab variance on this kind of assay is routinely 1–2 points. Different column, different gradient, different integration.
Retitled to remove editorialising. Put the evidence in the body.
Cosigning the evidence standard. Receipts make the community.
First order from ERP was great, second one had a different batch and tested lower. The vendor retested and credited me. Logged it here.
receipts or nothing, sorry but that is the rule
the reship rate on WXT is actually pretty consistent
This order history matches mine almost exactly. Same vendor, same timeframe, same result.
positive and negative reports both need the same evidence standard
This order history matches mine almost exactly. Same vendor, same timeframe, same result.
The PeptideMeter and Medutest numbers on the same vial from MKM came back 98.3% and 97.4%. Both are right, inter-lab variance is real.
one vendor per post, multi-vendor goes in the monthly thread
That is net peptide content, not purity. Different number, different meaning.
JEEP order #18, Ireland, no drama, receipts inside
Not to be pedantic but vendor and Medutest are being used interchangeably and they are not interchangeable in real life.
referral links mean instant ban, no exceptions
HJ took 8 days to answer an email and the material was flawless. Both of those things are true.
positive and negative reports both need the same evidence standard
positive and negative reports both need the same evidence standard
Disagree on that part. 95.1% and 99.3% on the same vial is normal.
Not to be pedantic but Janoshik and Medutest are being used interchangeably and they are not interchangeable in real life.
the reship rate on HJ is actually pretty consistent
Small correction: the trial was 17 weeks, not 12. Does not change your point but people will quote it.
Inter-lab variance on this kind of assay is routinely 1–2 points. Different column, different gradient, different integration.
one vendor per post, multi-vendor goes in the monthly thread
Inter-lab variance on this kind of assay is routinely 1–2 points.
Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.
- 1This order history matches mine almost exactly. Same vendor, same timeframe,…13 comments in this branch · started by u/solene_eriksen
- 2Cosigning the evidence standard. Receipts make the community.6 comments in this branch · started by u/usp_appendix