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?
Archived. This submission is more than a year old. Votes and new comments are closed, and some of the advice in it may have been superseded — check the community wiki for the current version.
8.1k
c/vendorvetting·posted 2 years ago by u/arne_nyberg

someone explain Medutest to me like I have not read a paper in years

PSA Receipts ×3 Long Haul ×1 Clean Column ×1

Trying to get a straight answer on this: someone explain Medutest to me like I have not read a paper in years.

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.

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.

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.

If somebody has the same thing measured a different way, post it next to mine and we will see whether they agree.

10,212 up / 2,112 down83% upvoted48 commentsid 1g53ap30 Sep 2023

48 comments

24 in this archive, depth 6

best — the order this archive was captured in

u/adnan_karlsen926 points·2 years ago

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.

replysharereportpermalink
u/lina_almeida212 points·2 years ago

consistency across lots beats one spectacular result

replysharereportpermalink
[removed]81 points·2 years ago

[removed by moderator]

replysharereportpermalink
u/dilara_weiss94 points·2 years ago

a directory entry is a record, not a recommendation

replysharereportpermalink
u/ignacio_silva66 points·2 years ago

Small fix — the figure you quoted is the claimed purity from the certificate, and the independent result was the higher of the two.

replysharereportpermalink
u/boots_or_bust24 points·2 years ago

I would separate documentation from logistics. A supplier can be excellent at one and ordinary at the other, and averaging them hides it.

replysharereportpermalink
u/milos_vestergaard7 points·2 years ago

That reads as a recommendation and the source pages deliberately are not. They are a record you use to make your own decision.

replysharereportpermalink
u/sofia_ferreira574 points·2 years ago·edited

Mild pushback: a supplier with fewer entries is not worse, it is less sampled. Those are different claims and the table says so.

replysharereportpermalink
u/lina_dziedzic428 points·2 years ago·edited

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.

replysharereportpermalink
u/scam_taxonomyc/scamalerts205 points·2 years ago

That is a report count, not a test count. The table lists both and they are very different numbers.

replysharereportpermalink
load more comments (2) →
u/throwaway_titration220 points·2 years ago

ask for the batch record before you ask for a discount

replysharereportpermalink
u/tl_dr_tina104 points·2 years ago

the lot on the vial has to match the lot on the certificate, every time

replysharereportpermalink
u/sig_figs_sammod · analytical52 points·2 years ago

three independent results beat thirty forum posts

replysharereportpermalink
u/milos_vestergaard66 points·2 years ago

the interesting column is spread, not maximum

replysharereportpermalink
u/gustav_vermeulen95 points·2 years ago

Kept a spreadsheet of quoted versus actual lead time across 6 orders. The quoted number held.

replysharereportpermalink
u/pavel_kravchenko157 points·2 years ago

reship policy in writing before the order, not after

replysharereportpermalink
u/honest_syringe19109 points·2 years ago

the wider-market names in the table are there because nobody has enough data on them

replysharereportpermalink
u/ismael_pires129 points·2 years ago

Correction: that supplier is in the documented twenty with a source page, not in the wider-market table. Different evidence bases entirely.

replysharereportpermalink
u/patient_labslip_log153 points·2 years ago

Did you ask for the batch-specific certificate, or the generic one?

replysharereportpermalink
u/dario_ibarra-33 points·2 years ago

This. Ask for the batch record. The ones who send it inside a day have told you more than any review could.

replysharereportpermalink
u/ismael_pires1 point·2 years ago

Fixing my own comment above: I said 12 orders and it is 35. The pattern is the same, the count was wrong.

replysharereportpermalink
u/zeynep_duarte59 points·2 years ago

The thing that decided it for me was that KP answered a column-and-gradient question in writing without asking why I wanted to know.

replysharereportpermalink
Permalinked branches
Deep branches get their own page so a single reply chain can be linked and read on its own.
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

Janoshik Analytical

Independent HPLC and mass spec. The number you get is the number they found.

janoshik.com
Sponsored

GL Biochem (Shanghai)

Custom peptides and amino acids direct from the manufacturer since 1998. ISO 9001 / cGMP. Batch COA every order.

glbiochem.net
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.