how much of what we believe about Medutest actually comes from batch threads
Asking properly rather than in a comment on somebody else’s thread: how much of what we believe about Medutest actually comes from batch threads.
Tested three lots over a year rather than three vials from one lot. Cost the same and told me something completely different.
Sent a vial in specifically to check a supplier’s claim after a good experience. It matched. Boring result, worth logging.
Have now spent more on testing than on some of the orders. No regrets — the log is the reason I can buy without agonising.
Screenshot none of this. Read the whole thread, including the parts where I am told I am wrong.
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.
Merged with the other thread on the same batch so the results sit together.
a result with no batch number is about a vial nobody can identify
How many separate lots does your series cover?
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.
if you are going to test, test the thing you actually received
the log is cumulative, that is the whole value of it
net peptide content if the report gives it, and say which you are quoting
the trend across lots is worth more than any single figure
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
SWB came back 99.6% on a claimed 99.0%, which is agreement not a discrepancy
Which service, and did you pay for it yourself?
Right, and a point or two between services is ordinary. It is agreement, and every month somebody posts it as a scandal.
inter-lab variance runs a point or two, plan your outrage accordingly
Push back: three tests on one lot is one lot. It tells you about that lot and almost nothing about the next one.
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.
Is that the same lot as the one in the thread from last month?
Area percent and net peptide content are different measurements and most reports give one. Quote which, or the comparison downstream is meaningless.
Correcting myself: I quoted net peptide content against somebody else’s area percent. Not a comparison.
Kept every report as a PDF with the batch in the filename. Two years in, it is the most useful folder I own.
- 1How many separate lots does your series cover?9 comments in this branch · started by u/britta_boateng
- 2Push back: three tests on one lot is one lot. It tells you about that lot…7 comments in this branch · started by u/edit_for_clarity