u/sofia_ferreira

what does the certificate actually carry — that is the whole question

a directory entry is a record, not a recommendation

Independent purity results for this compound are very sparse across the whole site, which means any impression about consistency is built on almost nothing.

the wider-market names in the table are there because nobody has enough data on them

Cardiovascular outcome trials are powered for events, not for weight, and are typically run in a different population with different inclusion criteria. Reading a weight number out of one is reading a secondary endpoint.

Correction: that is net peptide content, not purity. Different number, different meaning, and the document says so if you read the row label.

appeal in writing even when they say a call is enough

the lot on the vial has to match the lot on the certificate, every time

Fixing my own comment above: I said 9 orders and it is 3. The pattern is the same, the count was wrong.

Mild pushback: a supplier with fewer entries is not worse, it is less sampled. Those are different claims and the table says so.

Agreed — the itemised related substances table is the difference between a document and a receipt.

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.

reflux_report has the distinction right — one is a fraction of the detector signal, the other is a fraction of the mass.

This is the sentence to take away. The rest of the thread is footnotes to it.