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 how much of what we believe about Janoshik actually comes from PeptideMeter threads — 57 comments in the full submission. View in context.
1.9k
c/vendorvetting·submitted 2 months ago by u/receipts_or_nothing

how much of what we believe about Janoshik actually comes from PeptideMeter threads

Questionbranch of 6 comments

how much of what we believe about Janoshik actually comes from PeptideMeter threads — that is what I am asking, and I have already read the wiki twice. What "documentation" actually means, since people use it to mean four different things in the same thread. A certificate of analysis is one document about one lot. A…

Read the full submission and all 57 comments →

This branch

6 comments, started 2 months ago
u/soren_zamora80 points·2 months ago

Yes. Spread across lots is the number that tells you about the process. A single high result tells you about a vial.

replysharereportpermalink
u/cormac_pereira35 points·2 months ago

Agreed on buying small first. The cost of a test is small next to the cost of committing to a supplier you have not checked.

replysharereportpermalink
u/matias_falk66 points·2 months ago·edited

Lead time and minimum quantity are the two facts people forget to ask for and then argue about later. Both are answerable in one email before you commit.

replysharereportpermalink
u/soren_nkemelu23 points·2 months ago

Agree. The verification log is the part with the checkable facts in it; the number at the top is just a summary of a lot of averaging.

replysharereportpermalink
u/valeria_cardoso96 points·2 months ago

the source page log is more useful than the score above it

replysharereportpermalink
u/zofia_lindholm44 points·2 months ago

the source page log is more useful than the score above it

Agreed — and the corollary is that "no data" and "bad data" have to be written differently. The table separates them for exactly that reason.

replysharereportpermalink

← back to the whole thread

About c/vendorvetting

The community due-diligence desk. Vendor experiences, independent third-party test results, shipping and reship records, and the boring paperwork that separates a supplier from a story. Every substantive claim is expected to carry a receipt: an order id, a dated screenshot, or a test report from Janoshik, Medutest, PeptideMeter or VendorInvestigate.

96kmembers
130submissions
Aug 2023created
submissions / month, last year
Sponsored

Sigma-Aldrich Standards

Certified reference materials for peptide identity and purity work.

sigmaaldrich.com
c/vendorvetting rules
  1. One vendor per post. Multi-vendor comparisons go in the monthly comparison thread.
  2. No referral links, discount codes or affiliate URLs. Zero tolerance, permanent ban.
  3. Positive and negative reports both need the same evidence standard: order date, product, and what was tested.
  4. Vendor staff must self-identify. Undisclosed vendor accounts are banned on sight.
  5. Independent community. Nobody here sells anything, and anyone who tries is banned.
  6. Not medical advice. Describe what you did; never prescribe to a stranger.
  7. Claims need evidence. Batch numbers, dated screenshots, independent test reports, or a citation.
  8. No referral links, discount codes or affiliate URLs. Permanent ban, no appeal.
  9. No contact handles, wallet addresses or tracking numbers — they identify people.
  10. 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.