mg/mL — 18 things I got wrong before I got it right
I have had 8 orders now and I keep a table, so here is the honest summary rather than a vibe.
Material has been consistent. Communication has not. Shipping has varied by about 34 days on nominally the same lane, which matters more in summer than in February.
The independent number came back 96.8% against a claimed 97.2%, which I read as agreement rather than a discrepancy — inter-lab variance on this assay is a point or two either way and treating one lab as ground truth is how people end up in pointless arguments with vendors.
Batch number is in the comments. Ask if you want the method.
best — the order this archive was captured in
stopper coring on the 21th draw because you keep using the same entry point. rotate.
Cosigning. The concentration on the vial in marker is load-bearing.
That is net peptide content, not purity. Different number, different meaning.
Disagree. What you are describing is consistent with concentration, not with what you concluded.
Yeah, showing the arithmetic is the fastest way for someone to spot the error.
Dead space ate 20 units on a low-volume draw. Tiny impact at 1.0mg, massive impact at 15mg.
Yeah, showing the arithmetic is the fastest way for someone to spot the error.
Yes, exactly this, and it is the bit that took me 16 weeks to accept.
show your working or it is unhelpful
The confident tone is doing a lot of work that the evidence is not.
- 1Disagree. What you are describing is consistent with concentration, not with…6 comments in this branch · started by u/sock_puppet_spotter