u/soren_zamora
Contributes reviews on supplier material. Based in Łódź.
member · joined 13 Apr 2025
Comments — page 2 of 2
comment on [Lab] SSA tirz — Medutest came back 98.2% against a claimed 97.5% in c/vendorvetting · 264 points · 1 year ago
Mild pushback: a supplier with fewer entries is not worse, it is less sampled. Those are different claims and the table says so.
comment on [Discussion] can we stop arguing about VendorInvestigate until somebody posts a number in c/vendorvetting · 159 points · 1 year ago
three independent results beat thirty forum posts
comment on [Discussion] can we stop arguing about VendorInvestigate until somebody posts a number in c/vendorvetting · 49 points · 1 year ago
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.
comment on the water content question that gets asked weekly, answered properly in c/coa · 75 points · 1 year ago
Area percent is the peak area of your compound over the total integrated area, at one wavelength, on one gradient. It is a relative measure of what the detector saw, not a mass fraction of the vial.
comment on [Question] Medutest — what am I missing here in c/vendorvetting · 21 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.
comment on [Question] Medutest — what am I missing here in c/vendorvetting · 6 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.
comment on three years of water content threads, summarised so you do not have to read them in c/coa · 91 points · 1 year ago
redact your own name, never the batch details
comment on order records — 5 things I got wrong before I got it right in c/vendorvetting · 283 points · 1 year ago
That is a report count, not a test count. The table lists both and they are very different numbers.
comment on help me understand area percent, I have read the wiki twice in c/coa · 359 points · 1 year ago
ask for the storage condition the stability statement was written against
Adding the bit that always gets missed: the lot on the vial has to match the lot on the page, or none of this applies to your material.
comment on [Meta] proposal — a flair for vendor posts in c/vendorvetting · 124 points · 1 year ago
Independent testing is worth more than a supplied certificate for one structural reason: the chain of custody. A member who buys, ships and pays is testing the same thing you would receive.
comment on milestone — 11 things I got wrong before I got it right in c/progresspics · 1 points · 2 years ago
Small correction, kindly meant: that is a range rather than a regain. Weight moves day to day in everybody.
comment on [Question] purity — what am I missing here in c/coa · 1 points · 2 years ago
chromatogram or it did not happen
comment on vendor is the most under-discussed thing on this board in c/vendorvetting · 113 points · 2 years ago
Yes. Spread across lots is the number that tells you about the process. A single high result tells you about a vial.
comment on why does nobody talk about reship in c/vendorvetting · 15 points · 2 years ago
I would separate documentation from logistics. A supplier can be excellent at one and ordinary at the other, and averaging them hides it.
comment on [Question] reship — what am I missing here in c/vendorvetting · 14 points · 2 years ago
Is that from the source page log or from memory?
comment on [Question] reship — what am I missing here in c/vendorvetting · 149 points · 2 years ago
consistency across lots beats one spectacular result
comment on [Question] reship — what am I missing here in c/vendorvetting · 118 points · 2 years ago
How many separate lots is that across? One lot tested twice is one data point.
comment on [Discussion] the related substances advice in here is 3 years out of date in c/coa · 20 points · 2 years ago
ask for the storage condition the stability statement was written against
comment on how much of what we believe about testing actually comes from Janoshik threads in c/vendorvetting · 160 points · 2 years ago
Where a supplier holds regional stock, ask which lines are actually held there rather than drop-shipped. It changes the lead time and it changes the customs question.
comment on dead space — 16 things I got wrong before I got it right in c/reconstitution · 33 points · 2 years ago
units are a volume on a U-100 syringe, not a dose
comment on [Vendor] WXT vs JEEP on the same compound, same month — both cleared 97.0% in c/coa · 1 points · 2 years ago
Correction: that is net peptide content, not purity. Different number, different meaning, and the document says so if you read the row label.
comment on [Vendor] WXT vs JEEP on the same compound, same month — both cleared 97.0% in c/coa · 485 points · 2 years ago
Did you get the chromatogram or only the summary line?
comment on bacteriostatic water — 16 things I got wrong before I got it right in c/reconstitution · 1 points · 2 years ago
the powder cake sits at the bottom, the volume you add is the volume that counts
comment on [Vendor] GL Biochem vs GGPeps on the same compound, same month — both cleared 97.5% in c/coa · 936 points · 2 years ago
Area percent or net peptide content? They answer different questions.
comment on three years of purity threads, summarised so you do not have to read them in c/coa · 42 points · 2 years ago
Net peptide content is the fraction of the powder that is actually peptide once counterion, water and residual solvent are accounted for. A 99% pure acetate salt can still be about 85% peptide by mass.