the Janoshik thing finally clicked for me and I want to write it down
the Janoshik thing finally clicked for me and I want to write it down, and I am aware this is a minority view on this board.
Fourth lot from the same supplier in the log now and the band has been tight the whole way. That consistency is the actual finding.
Tested three lots over a year rather than three vials from one lot. Cost the same and told me something completely different.
First result I ever posted here got asked for the batch number and the claim. Fair, and my posts have been better ever since.
Research-use-only material is not approved for human use and nothing here should be read as a recommendation to use it.
best — the order this archive was captured in
A series across separate lots estimates a process. Repeat tests on one lot estimate the measurement. Both are useful and they answer different questions.
Disagree that this is a discrepancy. 99.3% against a claimed 98.5% is inside ordinary inter-lab variance in either direction.
Cosigning on saying who paid. It is the whole basis on which this log is worth anything.
Left up and added to the vendor source page log. Thanks for paying for it and posting it.
Chain of custody is why member-funded testing is worth more than a supplied certificate: the vial tested is the vial that arrived at a member’s door.
Right, and a point or two between services is ordinary. It is agreement, and every month somebody posts it as a scandal.
Sent a vial in specifically to check a supplier’s claim after a good experience. It matched. Boring result, worth logging.
vendor, compound, batch, service, result — that is the template
one result is a data point, agreement between two services is evidence
date of analysis matters as much as the number
Area percent or net peptide content?
Area percent and net peptide content are different measurements and most reports give one. Quote which, or the comparison downstream is meaningless.
inter-lab variance runs a point or two, plan your outrage accordingly
How to build a series that means something, if you are going to spend money on testing anyway.
Three tests on one lot tells you about your measurement. Three tests on three lots, spread over a year, tells you about a process. The second is the one worth paying for and it costs the same.
Buy small, keep the batch numbers, send one vial per lot, and post each one with the claim next to it. After four or five you have something no individual review can give you: a band, a direction and a date range. That is what the source pages are made of.
That service reports area percent by default. Worth stating, since the thread has been comparing it to a mass figure.
the log is cumulative, that is the whole value of it
Kept every report as a PDF with the batch in the filename. Two years in, it is the most useful folder I own.
Push back: three tests on one lot is one lot. It tells you about that lot and almost nothing about the next one.
a result with no batch number is about a vial nobody can identify
Split one vial between VendorInvestigate and Medutest. The two numbers were within half a point of each other and I stopped worrying about which lab to trust.
Split one vial between VendorInvestigate and Medutest.
noor_cardoso is right that the band matters more than the peak. Consistency across lots is the finding.
Yes — date of analysis, because a result from two years ago describes a different manufacturing month.
WXT BPC, batch matched the paperwork, Janoshik came back 98.7% against a claimed 98.0%. Paid for it myself, posting it because the log is only worth anything if people do.
- 1How to build a series that means something, if you are going to spend money…10 comments in this branch · started by u/refund_ledger
- 2Sent a vial in specifically to check a supplier’s claim after a good…7 comments in this branch · started by u/meera_sandvik