[Janoshik] FGP cagrilintide — first independent number i have seen for it
Title says it — FGP cagrilintide — first independent number i have seen for it — so here is the boring supporting detail that makes it worth anything.
GL Biochem BPC, batch matched the paperwork, Janoshik came back 97.6% against a claimed 97.0%. Paid for it myself, posting it because the log is only worth anything if people do.
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.
Tell me where this is wrong. That is the useful part of posting it.
- FGFGP source pageFlourishglobal Peptide Biotech (Chengdu) Co., Ltd. · Chengdu · 89% here, rank 20 · shop at flourishglobalpeptide.net →
nofollow and sponsored; nobody here is paid for it.best — the order this archive was captured in
Retitled — the original stated a discrepancy the numbers do not show.
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.
Correction: that is the claimed figure, and the measured one is the higher of the two in your own screenshot.
the trend across lots is worth more than any single figure
The template is vendor, compound, batch, service, claim, result, and who paid.
diego_szabo is right that the band matters more than the peak. Consistency across lots is the finding.
post the claim next to the result or the number floats
Tested three lots over a year rather than three vials from one lot. Cost the same and told me something completely different.
Which service, and did you pay for it yourself?
Correcting myself: I quoted net peptide content against somebody else’s area percent. Not a comparison.
one result is a data point, agreement between two services is evidence
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.
Right, and a point or two between services is ordinary. It is agreement, and every month somebody posts it as a scandal.
What a result posted here is actually worth, and how to make yours worth more.
Adding the boring but useful bit: say whether you paid for it. It is the basis of the whole log.
Kept every report as a PDF with the batch in the filename. Two years in, it is the most useful folder I own.
How many separate lots does your series cover?
date of analysis matters as much as the number
Small fix — same supplier, different lot. The two rows in the log are not the same batch.
Fourth lot from the same supplier in the log now and the band has been tight the whole way. That consistency is the actual finding.
vendor, compound, batch, service, result — that is the template
I would not post that as a finding. It is a single result and the template asks you to say so.
SGN came back 98.0% on a claimed 97.5%, which is agreement not a discrepancy
- 1The template is vendor, compound, batch, service, claim, result, and who…9 comments in this branch · started by u/diego_szabo
- 2Kept every report as a PDF with the batch in the filename. Two years in, it…8 comments in this branch · started by u/anders_vermeulen