three years of below spec threads, summarised so you do not have to read them
The title is the argument: three years of below spec threads, summarised so you do not have to read them. Here is the rest of it.
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.
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.
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.
Not medical advice, obviously, and nothing here is approved for human use. One person with a spreadsheet.
best — the order this archive was captured in
A series across separate lots estimates a process. Repeat tests on one lot estimate the measurement. Both are useful and they answer different questions.
Careful with the trend claim. Four results over two years is a very sparse series to draw a line through.
Batch number and date of analysis?
net peptide content if the report gives it, and say which you are quoting