GLPHubglpresearchhub.com
Read-only archive. GLP Research Hub is a static community record — nothing here is for sale, no account is needed, and no vote you cast is counted. Why?
Archived. This submission is more than a year old. Votes and new comments are closed, and some of the advice in it may have been superseded — check the community wiki for the current version.
4.7k
c/vendorvetting·posted 1 year ago by u/lina_dziedzic

[Discussion] can we stop arguing about Medutest until somebody posts a number

Discussion Clean Column ×1 Slow Clap ×3 Receipts ×2

The title is the whole question — can we stop arguing about Medutest until somebody posts a number — but here is why I am asking.

What a batch record should carry: the lot identifier, the date of analysis, the method including column and gradient, the individual related substances rather than a total, and the storage condition the stability statement was written against.

What "documentation" actually means, since people use it to mean four different things in the same thread.

A certificate of analysis is one document about one lot. A batch record is the manufacturing trail behind that lot. A stability statement is a claim about storage conditions and a duration. A method line is how the number on the certificate was produced.

You can ask for all four. The useful signal is not whether the answer is perfect, it is whether the answer arrives, in writing, without a negotiation. QST sends the method line unprompted; once you have seen that you stop accepting a bare number from anybody.

The wider-market rows in the directory carry a band and a report count and nothing else, deliberately. Anything more would be manufacturing precision that the evidence does not support.

Please do not ask me what dose you should be on. I genuinely do not know and neither does anyone else here.

5,635 up / 942 down86% upvoted26 commentsid bmxu0z9 Aug 2024

26 comments

22 in this archive, depth 4

best — the order this archive was captured in

u/lina_almeida573 points·1 year ago

A certificate with a purity figure and no method line is not falsifiable. You cannot reproduce it, you cannot check it, and it tells you nothing about how the number was produced.

replysharereportpermalink
u/teodor_lokken189 points·1 year ago

A certificate with a purity figure and no method line is not falsifiable.

lina_almeida is describing the batch record test and it is the fastest signal available before you spend anything.

replysharereportpermalink
u/lina_dziedzicOP370 points·1 year ago

Kept a spreadsheet of quoted versus actual lead time across 10 orders. The quoted number held.

replysharereportpermalink
load more comments (3) →
u/batch_number_bertieMOD466 points·1 year ago

Flair set to Vendor. Also a reminder that we take no money from any supplier in the directory.

replysharereportpermalink
[deleted]189 points·1 year ago

[deleted]

replysharereportpermalink
u/rina_nascimento101 points·1 year ago

Small fix — the figure you quoted is the claimed purity from the certificate, and the independent result was the higher of the two.

replysharereportpermalink
u/kasper_cabrera81 points·1 year ago

Disagree that reviews are worthless. They are worthless when they say "fast shipping A+++". A dated one naming a compound and a document is evidence.

replysharereportpermalink
load more comments (1) →
u/tl_dr_tina414 points·1 year ago

three independent results beat thirty forum posts

replysharereportpermalink
u/pavel_kravchenko191 points·1 year ago

Yes. Spread across lots is the number that tells you about the process. A single high result tells you about a vial.

replysharereportpermalink
u/greta_lokken249 points·1 year ago

Yes, and the reason the wider-market table has no scores is that a score built on two reports would be a lie with a decimal point.

replysharereportpermalink
u/amara_haddad134 points·1 year ago

Inter-lab variance on this assay runs a point or two either way. Two services disagreeing by that much is agreement, not a discrepancy, and treating it otherwise starts pointless arguments.

replysharereportpermalink
u/janoshik_junkieindependent tester53 points·1 year ago

Agree. The verification log is the part with the checkable facts in it; the number at the top is just a summary of a lot of averaging.

replysharereportpermalink
u/reads_the_wiki0 points·1 year ago

Right — QSC publishes the method line on the certificate, and once you have seen one that does you notice every one that does not.

replysharereportpermalink
u/dagny_ogunleye33 points·1 year ago·edited

Agree.

Agreed — and the corollary is that "no data" and "bad data" have to be written differently. The table separates them for exactly that reason.

replysharereportpermalink
u/elise_grimaldi18 points·1 year ago

Correction: that supplier is in the documented twenty with a source page, not in the wider-market table. Different evidence bases entirely.

replysharereportpermalink
load more comments (3) →
Permalinked branches
Deep branches get their own page so a single reply chain can be linked and read on its own.
About c/vendorvetting

The community due-diligence desk. Vendor experiences, independent third-party test results, shipping and reship records, and the boring paperwork that separates a supplier from a story. Every substantive claim is expected to carry a receipt: an order id, a dated screenshot, or a test report from Janoshik, Medutest, PeptideMeter or VendorInvestigate.

96kmembers
130submissions
Aug 2023created
submissions / month, last year
Sponsored

Sigma-Aldrich Standards

Certified reference materials for peptide identity and purity work.

sigmaaldrich.com
c/vendorvetting rules
  1. One vendor per post. Multi-vendor comparisons go in the monthly comparison thread.
  2. No referral links, discount codes or affiliate URLs. Zero tolerance, permanent ban.
  3. Positive and negative reports both need the same evidence standard: order date, product, and what was tested.
  4. Vendor staff must self-identify. Undisclosed vendor accounts are banned on sight.
  5. Independent community. Nobody here sells anything, and anyone who tries is banned.
  6. Not medical advice. Describe what you did; never prescribe to a stranger.
  7. Claims need evidence. Batch numbers, dated screenshots, independent test reports, or a citation.
  8. No referral links, discount codes or affiliate URLs. Permanent ban, no appeal.
  9. No contact handles, wallet addresses or tracking numbers — they identify people.
  10. Be recognisably decent. Disagree hard, insult nobody.
Moderators
Volunteers. Unpaid, unaffiliated, and reachable through modmail only.
Before you read on

Several compounds discussed on GLP Research Hub are sold for research use only and are not approved for human use anywhere. Nothing here is medical advice and none of it is written by your clinician. If a post reads like an instruction, treat it as a description of what one stranger did.