[Janoshik] JEEP reta 10mg — 98.9%, and yes i paid for it myself
JEEP reta 10mg — 98.9%, and yes i paid for it myself. That is the headline. The document, the batch and the service are below so you can argue with the method rather than with me.
Numbers, in the order they matter: 10mg and 98.9%.
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.
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.
Happy to answer the boring questions. Those are usually the ones worth asking.
- JEJEEP source pageGuangzhou JEEP Biotechnology Co., Ltd. · Guangzhou · 97% here, rank 3 · shop at jeepbio.com →
nofollow and sponsored; nobody here is paid for it.best — the order this archive was captured in
What a result posted here is actually worth, and how to make yours worth more.
A single figure with no batch identifier is about a vial nobody can locate. Add the batch and it becomes about a lot. Add the claimed figure from the certificate and it becomes a comparison. Add the service and the date and it becomes reproducible. Say that you paid for it yourself and it becomes independent.
Five extra fields, thirty seconds of typing, and the difference between a comment and a row in the log that will still be useful in three years.
Nudging rather than removing: the standard template is in the sidebar and this post is missing the batch field.
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.
I would not post that as a finding. It is a single result and the template asks you to say so.
inter-lab variance runs a point or two, plan your outrage accordingly
Cosigning on saying who paid. It is the whole basis on which this log is worth anything.
FGP came back 99.4% on a claimed 98.5%, which is agreement not a discrepancy
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.
Agreed on quoting the claim alongside the result. Half the arguments here are two people comparing to different reference numbers.
On inter-lab disagreement, which generates more heat here than anything else.
Two services running different gradients, integrating differently, at possibly different wavelengths, will not produce identical numbers on the same material. A point either way is ordinary. Half a point is close agreement.
The productive response to a gap that size is to post both results with both methods and let the log accumulate. The unproductive response is to pick the lower number, call it the truth, and open a dispute. Members have done the first for long enough now that the bands in the vendor tables are genuinely informative.
Batch number and date of analysis?
Area percent or net peptide content?
results without method are gossip with decimals
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.
Careful with the trend claim. Four results over two years is a very sparse series to draw a line through.
- 1Agreed on quoting the claim alongside the result. Half the arguments here…7 comments in this branch · started by u/tuva_kirchner
- 2Date of analysis anchors the result to a manufacturing period. A…6 comments in this branch · started by u/bpc_sceptic