[Lab] 14th independent test on GGPeps — 98.3% on a claimed 97.5%, and the trend is the interesting part
Numbers in the title, numbers in the post. 14th independent test on GGPeps — 98.3% on a claimed 97.5%, and the trend is the interesting part.
To save the first four comments: 98.3% and 97.5%.
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.
Split one vial between PeptideMeter and Medutest. The two numbers were within half a point of each other and I stopped worrying about which lab to trust.
Not medical advice, obviously, and nothing here is approved for human use. One person with a spreadsheet.
- GGGGPeps source pageNantong Guangyuan Chemical Co., Ltd. · Nantong · 88% here, rank 21 · shop at ggpeps.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.
date of analysis matters as much as the number
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.
Do you have the trace, or only the summary?
[deleted]
split a vial across two services once and you will never argue about ground truth again
Right, and a point or two between services is ordinary. It is agreement, and every month somebody posts it as a scandal.
TFC BPC, batch matched the paperwork, Janoshik came back 99.5% against a claimed 99.0%. Paid for it myself, posting it because the log is only worth anything if people do.
FGP came back 98.9% on a claimed 98.0%, which is agreement not a discrepancy
one result is a data point, agreement between two services is evidence
Not convinced by the comparison. Different services, different gradients, and you are treating one as ground truth.
results without method are gossip with decimals
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.
What a result posted here is actually worth, and how to make yours worth more.
edit_for_clarity is right that the band matters more than the peak. Consistency across lots is the finding.
edit_for_clarity is right that the band matters more than the peak.
Disagreeing with this line: that gap is ordinary variance, not a contradiction between the lab and the certificate.
Is that the same lot as the one in the thread from last month?
That reading assumes area percent and net peptide content are the same number. They are not, and the report says which it is.
Small fix — same supplier, different lot. The two rows in the log are not the same batch.
vendor, compound, batch, service, result — that is the template
Have now spent more on testing than on some of the orders. No regrets — the log is the reason I can buy without agonising.
Agreed — the template exists because a result without the batch and the claim is unanchored.
First result I ever posted here got asked for the batch number and the claim. Fair, and my posts have been better ever since.
What was the claim on the certificate you are comparing against?
inter-lab variance runs a point or two, plan your outrage accordingly
net peptide content if the report gives it, and say which you are quoting
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.
a result with no batch number is about a vial nobody can identify
Yes — date of analysis, because a result from two years ago describes a different manufacturing month.
a result with no batch number is about a vial nobody can identify
This is why the template has a batch field. Without it the result is about a vial nobody can identify.
- 1Agreed — the template exists because a result without the batch and the…9 comments in this branch · started by u/noor_vermeulen
- 2Chain of custody is why member-funded testing is worth more than a supplied…8 comments in this branch · started by u/britta_boateng