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 [Question] how do you actually verify Janoshik — 28 comments in the full submission. View in context.
3.7k
c/labresults·submitted 3 months ago by u/kenji_kimani

[Question] how do you actually verify Janoshik

Labbranch of 8 comments

Asking properly rather than in a comment on somebody else’s thread: how do you actually verify Janoshik. On inter-lab disagreement, which generates more heat here than anything else. Two services running different gradients, integrating differently, at possibly different wavelengths, will not produce identical…

Read the full submission and all 28 comments →

This branch

8 comments, started 3 months ago
u/meera_sandvik206 points·3 months ago

Agreed — the template exists because a result without the batch and the claim is unanchored.

replysharereportpermalink
u/medutest_melMOD82 points·3 months ago

Merged with the other thread on the same batch so the results sit together.

replysharereportpermalink
u/reship_roulette27 points·3 months ago

SWB came back 98.8% on a claimed 98.5%, which is agreement not a discrepancy

replysharereportpermalink
u/honest_syringe16 points·3 months ago

SWB came back 98.8% on a claimed 98.5%, which is agreement not a discrepancy

reship_roulette is right that the band matters more than the peak. Consistency across lots is the finding.

replysharereportpermalink
u/kenji_kimaniOP19 points·3 months ago

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

replysharereportpermalink
u/anders_vermeulen18 points·3 months ago

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

replysharereportpermalink
u/piotr_nascimento52 points·3 months ago·edited

Merged with the other thread on the same batch so the results sit together.

Adding the boring but useful bit: say whether you paid for it. It is the basis of the whole log.

replysharereportpermalink
u/kenji_kimaniOP23 points·3 months ago·edited

What was the claim on the certificate you are comparing against?

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.