[Lab] 15th independent test on QSC, and the trend is the interesting part
Long-ish post, sorry. tl;dr at the bottom.
I have been tracking certificate of analysis against ApoB for 39 weeks because I could not find anyone who had. The correlation is weaker than I expected, which is itself mildly interesting given how confidently people link the two in here.
Caveats up front: one person, one lab, one assay, no control, and I changed my training in the middle of it, which was stupid.
tl;dr: probably real, definitely smaller than the threads imply, and not worth reorganising your week around.
best — the order this archive was captured in
post the whole document, not the headline number
Not convinced. The evidence does not support that reading.
the method line is doing real work, not just window dressing
Retitled to remove editorialising. Put the evidence in the body.
[deleted]
purity and net content are two different numbers, same vial
This is the correct framing. The COA structure matters as much as the number.
purity and net content are two different numbers, same vial
PDF metadata is checkable in fifteen seconds
chromatogram or it did not happen
Yeah, 96.8% area is not the problem, the missing impurity breakdown is the problem.
area% is not mass%, and here is exactly why it matters
Retitled to remove editorialising.
Yes, exactly this, and it is the bit that took me 41 weeks to accept.
area% is not mass%, and here is exactly why it matters
Did they give you the chromatogram or just the summary line?
the counterion is part of the mass you paid for
What is the method line say? Not the technique, the actual method.
Strongly agree. Mass% and area% are answering different questions on the same document.
the batch number or it did not happen
Inter-lab variance on this kind of assay is routinely 1–2 points. Different column, different gradient, different integration.
- 1Retitled to remove editorialising. Put the evidence in the body.16 comments in this branch · started by u/certified_reference