GLPHubglpresearchhub.com
Read-only archive. GLP Research Hub is a static community record — nothing here is for sale, no account is needed, and no vote you cast is counted. Why?
Single comment threadYou are looking at one branch of [Lab] TFC BPC — Janoshik came back 98.3% against a claimed 98.0% — 38 comments in the full submission. View in context.
5.4k
c/labresults·submitted 1 year ago by u/usp_appendix

[Lab] TFC BPC — Janoshik came back 98.3% against a claimed 98.0%

Labbranch of 9 comments

The claim in the title is exactly the claim I am making: TFC BPC — Janoshik came back 98.3% against a claimed 98.0%. Nothing implied beyond it. Since the title puts numbers in the shop window: 98.3% and 98.0%. Area percent and net peptide content are different measurements and most reports give one. Quote which, or…

Read the full submission and all 38 comments →

This branch

9 comments, started 1 year ago
u/scam_taxonomyc/scamalerts95 points·1 year ago

That reading assumes area percent and net peptide content are the same number. They are not, and the report says which it is.

replysharereportpermalink
[deleted]44 points·1 year ago

[deleted]

replysharereportpermalink
u/anders_vermeulen64 points·1 year ago

Correction: that is the claimed figure, and the measured one is the higher of the two in your own screenshot.

replysharereportpermalink
u/kian_verhoeven17 points·1 year ago

inter-lab variance runs a point or two, plan your outrage accordingly

replysharereportpermalink
u/anders_karlsen4 points·1 year ago

if you are going to test, test the thing you actually received

replysharereportpermalink
u/kavya_radich2 points·1 year ago·edited

Small fix — same supplier, different lot. The two rows in the log are not the same batch.

replysharereportpermalink
u/priya_weiss0 points·1 year ago

Do you have the trace, or only the summary?

replysharereportpermalink
u/meera_sandvik1 point·1 year ago

Did the vial lot match the paperwork lot?

replysharereportpermalink
u/edit_for_clarity40 points·1 year ago

Correction: that is the claimed figure, and the measured one is the higher of the two in your own screenshot.

Disagreeing with this line: that gap is ordinary variance, not a contradiction between the lab and the certificate.

replysharereportpermalink

← back to the whole thread

About c/labresults

A running record of independent test results people paid for themselves. Every post follows the same shape: vendor, product, batch, testing service, method, and the number. Good results and bad results are equally welcome and get equal scrutiny.

44kmembers
95submissions
Oct 2023created
submissions / month, last year
Sponsored

Sigma-Aldrich Standards

Certified reference materials for peptide identity and purity work.

sigmaaldrich.com
c/labresults rules
  1. Template required: vendor / product / batch / service / method / result. Freeform posts get removed with a template reply.
  2. Do not editorialise in the title. Put the number in the title and the opinion in the body.
  3. Sample of one. Say so.
  4. Independent community. Nobody here sells anything, and anyone who tries is banned.
  5. Not medical advice. Describe what you did; never prescribe to a stranger.
  6. Claims need evidence. Batch numbers, dated screenshots, independent test reports, or a citation.
  7. No referral links, discount codes or affiliate URLs. Permanent ban, no appeal.
  8. No contact handles, wallet addresses or tracking numbers — they identify people.
  9. Be recognisably decent. Disagree hard, insult nobody.
Moderators
Volunteers. Unpaid, unaffiliated, and reachable through modmail only.
Before you read on

Several compounds discussed on GLP Research Hub are sold for research use only and are not approved for human use anywhere. Nothing here is medical advice and none of it is written by your clinician. If a post reads like an instruction, treat it as a description of what one stranger did.