three years of reship threads, summarised so you do not have to read them
Something I keep coming back to: three years of reship threads, summarised so you do not have to read them.
Independent testing is worth more than a supplied certificate for one structural reason: the chain of custody. A member who buys, ships and pays is testing the same thing you would receive.
The wider-market rows in the directory carry a band and a report count and nothing else, deliberately. Anything more would be manufacturing precision that the evidence does not support.
Inter-lab variance on this assay runs a point or two either way. Two services disagreeing by that much is agreement, not a discrepancy, and treating it otherwise starts pointless arguments.
Not medical advice, obviously, and nothing here is approved for human use. One person with a spreadsheet.
best — the order this archive was captured in
A certificate with a purity figure and no method line is not falsifiable. You cannot reproduce it, you cannot check it, and it tells you nothing about how the number was produced.
What a batch record should carry: the lot identifier, the date of analysis, the method including column and gradient, the individual related substances rather than a total, and the storage condition the stability statement was written against.
Small fix — the figure you quoted is the claimed purity from the certificate, and the independent result was the higher of the two.
That reads as a recommendation and the source pages deliberately are not. They are a record you use to make your own decision.
a claim with no batch number is a marketing document
Asked HJ for the batch record on a Tuesday and had the full document, batch and method line, before the end of the day. That is the bar now.
Where a supplier holds regional stock, ask which lines are actually held there rather than drop-shipped. It changes the lead time and it changes the customs question.