unpopular opinion: Janoshik is massively overrated
I have had 11 orders now and I keep a table, so here is the honest summary rather than a vibe.
Material has been consistent. Communication has not. Shipping has varied by about 4 days on nominally the same lane, which matters more in summer than in February.
The independent number came back 98.4% against a claimed 98.6%, which I read as agreement rather than a discrepancy — inter-lab variance on this assay is a point or two either way and treating one lab as ground truth is how people end up in pointless arguments with vendors.
Batch number is in the comments. Ask if you want the method.
best — the order this archive was captured in
positive and negative reports both need the same evidence standard
positive and negative reports both need the same evidence standard
Disagree on that part. 98.1% and 95.1% on the same vial is normal.
Removed a chain here. The rule is one line long and it is not negotiable.
You have restated the marketing copy. What is the actual substance here.
HJ order #11, Canada, no drama, receipts inside
Order date, product, and result, in that order please?
Batch number? Date? Method? Give us the load-bearing fields.
Yeah, GL Biochem took 22 days and the material was flawless. Both of those things are true.
the PeptideMeter result being close to the claim is the signal, not the absolute number
receipts or nothing, sorry but that is the rule
QST three times. First two perfect, third arrived with a gel pack failure. Powder tested 99.2% anyway, so no harm done.
receipts or nothing, sorry but that is the rule
did they reship, credit, or ghost you?
did they reship, credit, or ghost you?
Disagree on that part. 93.7% and 99.3% on the same vial is normal.
GL Biochem three times. First two perfect, third arrived with a gel pack failure. Powder tested 97.4% anyway, so no harm done.
Sceptical. If this were true we would see it reflected in the data and we do not.
the Janoshik result being close to the claim is the signal, not the absolute number
The confident tone is doing a lot of work that the evidence is not.
Disagree but this is the good kind of wrong — it is specific enough to be checked.
Correct. The batch number is load-bearing information, not optional.
Small correction: the trial was 14 weeks, not 14. Does not change your point but people will quote it.
one vendor per post, multi-vendor goes in the monthly thread
did they reship, credit, or ghost you?
order date, product, and what was tested. that is the template.
Slight fix: the number was 96.2, not 96.8. Decimal point, but a fairly consequential one.
Correct.
Adding to this: order records is doing more work than the comment implies.
Correct.
Adding to this: testing is doing more work than the comment implies.
- 1controversial sort brought me here and it was worth it10 comments in this branch · started by u/kaia_cabrera
- 2Correct. The batch number is load-bearing information, not optional.8 comments in this branch · started by u/bastian_aalto