i keep a spreadsheet of every vendor claim and whether it survived contact with a lab
i keep a spreadsheet of every vendor claim and whether it survived contact with a lab — a position I have arrived at slowly and would like tested.
Why the directory has two tiers, since the question comes up whenever somebody new finds it.
Twenty suppliers have enough independent results, over enough separate lots, over enough time, that the log says something. Those get a page, a test table and a link to their own storefront so you can compare their claims with the record.
The rest — nearly two hundred names — get a row, a band and a report count. Not because they are bad, but because two results is an anecdote about a vial. Manufacturing a score out of that would make the whole directory worthless, and the contrast is the point.
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.
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.
If somebody has the same thing measured a different way, post it next to mine and we will see whether they agree.
best — the order this archive was captured in
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.
the lot on the vial has to match the lot on the certificate, every time
[deleted]
Correction: that supplier is in the documented twenty with a source page, not in the wider-market table. Different evidence bases entirely.
Minimum order and lead time — did they quote both up front?
Kept a spreadsheet of quoted versus actual lead time across 24 orders. The quoted number held.
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.
Paradigm Peptide came up in three threads the week I was ordering and I could not find a single independent result for them anywhere. Went with a documented supplier instead.
How many separate lots is that across? One lot tested twice is one data point.
Careful. "Nobody has tested Peptidology" is a statement about this board, not about the supplier. Say the first thing, not the second.
How many separate lots is that across?
arne_nyberg is describing the batch record test and it is the fastest signal available before you spend anything.
Mild pushback: a supplier with fewer entries is not worse, it is less sampled. Those are different claims and the table says so.
- 1The wider-market rows in the directory carry a band and a report count and…11 comments in this branch · started by u/ipamorelin_i