u/teodor_jansen

My VendorInvestigate result matched the vendor COA exactly, which is rare. GGPeps deserves that note in the directory.

Tested 20 batches from GL Biochem over 49 weeks. Spread was 94.2% to 97.9, mostly 94.2. Consistent vendor.

do not editorialise in the title, put the number in the title and the opinion in the body

no question too basic, read the wiki first, then ask anyway

link the wiki instead of retyping, but politely

That is net peptide content, not purity. Different number, different meaning.

What does the wiki say?

The confident tone is doing a lot of work that the evidence is not.

Yeah, Poland coverage is not Poland coverage.

Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.

Tested the GLB raw material and a reseller vial side-by-side. Same purity claim, different impurity profiles. Handling matters.

Group buy used escrow. 20 people, 35 shipped without drama. Escrow is the insurance.

week two nothing happening — yes, that is normal

no "is this good?" without saying what the compound and claimed purity are

multiple batches from SWB show a spread, that is the data

provincial formularies differ sharply

Disagree. What you are describing is consistent with batch, not with what you concluded.

the related substances line is where the story is

Cosigning. The batch number is load-bearing information.

no cross-border purchasing instructions

Yes, exactly this, and it is the bit that took me 53 weeks to accept.

the batch number or it did not happen Adding to this: COA is doing more work than the comment implies.

Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.