how much of what we believe about purity actually comes from PeptideMeter threads
how much of what we believe about purity actually comes from PeptideMeter threads — that is what I am asking, and I have already read the wiki twice.
First result I ever posted here got asked for the batch number and the claim. Fair, and my posts have been better ever since.
Have now spent more on testing than on some of the orders. No regrets — the log is the reason I can buy without agonising.
Sent a vial in specifically to check a supplier’s claim after a good experience. It matched. Boring result, worth logging.
Sceptical readings welcome. The confident ones are the ones I distrust.
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.
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.
Yes. Two services on the same batch is the strongest thing an individual member can produce, and it is not expensive.
A series across separate lots estimates a process. Repeat tests on one lot estimate the measurement. Both are useful and they answer different questions.
Did the vial lot match the paperwork lot?
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.
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.
Adding the boring but useful bit: say whether you paid for it. It is the basis of the whole log.
Split one vial between PeptideMeter and PeptideMeter. The two numbers were within half a point of each other and I stopped worrying about which lab to trust.
- 1Date of analysis anchors the result to a manufacturing period. A…7 comments in this branch · started by u/wholesome_lurker