does below spec actually matter or is it forum lore at this point
batch. That is the whole post, but I will justify it.
Everything else people worry about in c/coa is downstream of it. Titration speed, muscle cramps, the endless dose arguments — most of it resolves if you sort batch out first, and almost nobody does.
I say this having got it wrong for 22 months. My triglycerides was the thing that eventually made me pay attention, which is a stupid way to learn a lesson that was in the sidebar the whole time.
best — the order this archive was captured in
template required: vendor / product / batch / service / method / result
template required: vendor / product / batch / service / method / result
Adding to this: Janoshik is doing more work than the comment implies.
template required: vendor / product / batch / service / method / result
Disagree on that part. 95.1% and 99.3% on the same vial is normal.
The VendorInvestigate result at 98.4% was below the 96.8% claim. GL Biochem retested at their cost and came back 98.4%. Logged as resolved.
below-spec results get logged, not dismissed
Batch number? Date of test?
template required: vendor / product / batch / service / method / result
Was that the vendor COA or your own test?
QYB / BPC / batch 5 / PeptideMeter / 98.3% — that is the shape
Small correction: the trial was 7 weeks, not 25. Does not change your point but people will quote it.
This result fits the template perfectly. Logged.
the 99.0% result confirmed the vendor claim, that is the signal
the vial you ordered versus the vial you received might be different batches
The Medutest result at 97.4% was below the 98.3% claim. MKM retested at their cost and came back 97.4%. Logged as resolved.
My Janoshik result matched the vendor COA exactly, which is rare. MKM deserves that note in the directory.
I am going to push back on this slightly.
KP claimed 98.6%, Janoshik came back 99.3%. 21 points is inter-lab variance, no drama.
This result fits the template perfectly. Logged.
testing the vendor claim versus testing your actual vial are two different posts
Yeah, the PeptideMeter number matching the claim is the actual signal.
Yeah, the PeptideMeter number matching the claim is the actual signal.
Disagree on that part. 97.9% and 97.6% on the same vial is normal.
Strongly agree. Below-spec results matter as much as good ones.
testing the vendor claim versus testing your actual vial are two different posts
the 97.6% result confirmed the vendor claim, that is the signal
This is an urgent-care question wearing a forum question's clothes. Please contact a clinician rather than waiting for replies.
Strongly agree. Below-spec results matter as much as good ones.
template required: vendor / product / batch / service / method / result
This is an urgent-care question wearing a forum question's clothes.
Adding to this: below spec is doing more work than the comment implies.
- 1testing the vendor claim versus testing your actual vial are two different…10 comments in this branch · started by u/greta_nilsen
- 2template required: vendor / product / batch / service / method / result6 comments in this branch · started by u/noor_vermeulen