does Medutest actually matter or is it forum lore at this point
does Medutest actually matter or is it forum lore at this point, and I want the answer with the reasoning attached rather than just the conclusion.
Area percent and net peptide content are different measurements and most reports give one. Quote which, or the comparison downstream is meaningless.
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.
Inter-lab variance on this assay runs roughly a point either way, driven mostly by gradient and integration. Two results inside that band agree; they do not disagree quietly.
Tell me where this is wrong. That is the useful part of posting it.
best — the order this archive was captured in
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.
Tested three lots over a year rather than three vials from one lot. Cost the same and told me something completely different.
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.
Date of analysis anchors the result to a manufacturing period.
Adding the boring but useful bit: say whether you paid for it. It is the basis of the whole log.
Area percent or net peptide content?
Area percent or net peptide content?
Disagreeing with this line: that gap is ordinary variance, not a contradiction between the lab and the certificate.
A series across separate lots estimates a process. Repeat tests on one lot estimate the measurement. Both are useful and they answer different questions.