why does nobody talk about Medutest
why does nobody talk about Medutest. If this has been answered properly somewhere, link me and I will delete.
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.
A series across separate lots estimates a process. Repeat tests on one lot estimate the measurement. Both are useful and they answer different questions.
Area percent and net peptide content are different measurements and most reports give one. Quote which, or the comparison downstream is meaningless.
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
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.
Area percent or net peptide content?
Yes — date of analysis, because a result from two years ago describes a different manufacturing month.
Right, and a point or two between services is ordinary. It is agreement, and every month somebody posts it as a scandal.
Correction: that is the claimed figure, and the measured one is the higher of the two in your own screenshot.
results without method are gossip with decimals
split a vial across two services once and you will never argue about ground truth again
Kept every report as a PDF with the batch in the filename. Two years in, it is the most useful folder I own.
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.
Do you have the trace, or only the summary?
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.
Agreed on quoting the claim alongside the result. Half the arguments here are two people comparing to different reference numbers.
vendor, compound, batch, service, result — that is the template
Retitled — the original stated a discrepancy the numbers do not show.
Sent a vial in specifically to check a supplier’s claim after a good experience. It matched. Boring result, worth logging.
the trend across lots is worth more than any single figure
inter-lab variance runs a point or two, plan your outrage accordingly
post the claim next to the result or the number floats
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.
- 1Yes — date of analysis, because a result from two years ago describes a…6 comments in this branch · started by u/honest_syringe