Janoshik — 19 things I got wrong before I got it right
The title is the argument: Janoshik — 19 things I got wrong before I got it right. Here is the rest of it.
If the report gives a mass spectrum as well as UV purity, say so. Identity and relative quantity are separate claims and the log tracks both.
Date of analysis anchors the result to a manufacturing period. A two-year-old result is evidence about two years ago and should be read that way.
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.
Screenshot none of this. Read the whole thread, including the parts where I am told I am wrong.
best — the order this archive was captured in
The template is vendor, compound, batch, service, claim, result, and who paid. Every one of those fields exists because a result missing it has been argued about here before.
Left up and added to the vendor source page log. Thanks for paying for it and posting it.
Careful with the trend claim. Four results over two years is a very sparse series to draw a line through.
Push back: three tests on one lot is one lot. It tells you about that lot and almost nothing about the next one.
Do you have the trace, or only the summary?
That reading assumes area percent and net peptide content are the same number. They are not, and the report says which it is.