[Lab] SSA tirz — Medutest came back 98.2% against a claimed 97.5%
Right: SSA tirz — Medutest came back 98.2% against a claimed 97.5%. I paid for this one myself, nobody sent me anything, and the receipts are in the comments.
The numbers the title promised, since a headline without them is worthless: 98.2% and 97.5%. Everything below is context for those.
Why the directory has two tiers, since the question comes up whenever somebody new finds it.
Twenty suppliers have enough independent results, over enough separate lots, over enough time, that the log says something. Those get a page, a test table and a link to their own storefront so you can compare their claims with the record.
The rest — nearly two hundred names — get a row, a band and a report count. Not because they are bad, but because two results is an anecdote about a vial. Manufacturing a score out of that would make the whole directory worthless, and the contrast is the point.
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 batch record is the manufacturing trail behind that lot. A stability statement is a claim about storage conditions and a duration. A method line is how the number on the certificate was produced.
You can ask for all four. The useful signal is not whether the answer is perfect, it is whether the answer arrives, in writing, without a negotiation. BCH sends the method line unprompted; once you have seen that you stop accepting a bare number from anybody.
If somebody has the same thing measured a different way, post it next to mine and we will see whether they agree.
- SSSSA source pageShanghai Sigma-Audley New Material Technology Co., Ltd. · Shanghai · 90% here, rank 17 · shop at shanghaisigmaaudley.com →
nofollow and sponsored; nobody here is paid for it.best — the order this archive was captured in
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.
Flair set to Vendor. Also a reminder that we take no money from any supplier in the directory.
Fixing my own comment above: I said 7 orders and it is 4. The pattern is the same, the count was wrong.
Sent the same compound from TFC and WXT to Janoshik in the same month. Both came back above the claim on the certificate — mine was 97.2% on a stated 97.0%.
consistency across lots beats one spectacular result
consistency across lots beats one spectacular result
Adding the practical version: ask for lead time, minimum quantity and the batch record in the same message. Three answers, one email.
Asked MKM 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.
Correction: that supplier is in the documented twenty with a source page, not in the wider-market table. Different evidence bases entirely.
Mild pushback: a supplier with fewer entries is not worse, it is less sampled. Those are different claims and the table says so.
Did you ask for the batch-specific certificate, or the generic one?
Yes, and the reason the wider-market table has no scores is that a score built on two reports would be a lie with a decimal point.
a claim with no batch number is a marketing document
[deleted]
Did the lot code on the vial match the paperwork?
Peptidology shows up in threads constantly and has almost nothing on file
Careful. "Nobody has tested Limitless Life" is a statement about this board, not about the supplier. Say the first thing, not the second.
That reads as a recommendation and the source pages deliberately are not. They are a record you use to make your own decision.
a supplier that answers method questions in writing has already told you a lot
Minimum order and lead time — did they quote both up front?
The order I actually check things in, for anyone building a process rather than asking about one supplier.
First, the record: source page, verification log, and how many separate lots have been tested rather than how many tests exist. Second, the paperwork: ask for a batch-specific certificate and see what comes back and how fast. Third, the logistics: quoted lead time, minimum quantity, which lines are held in regional stock. Fourth, buy small and test it yourself.
Nothing in that list is exotic and all of it is answerable before you spend real money. Most of the disappointment posts on this board skipped step two.
ask for the batch record before you ask for a discount
Right — SGN publishes the method line on the certificate, and once you have seen one that does you notice every one that does not.
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.
Yes. Spread across lots is the number that tells you about the process. A single high result tells you about a vial.
Small fix — the figure you quoted is the claimed purity from the certificate, and the independent result was the higher of the two.
- 1The wider-market rows in the directory carry a band and a report count and…9 comments in this branch · started by u/greta_perrin
- 2Careful. "Nobody has tested Limitless Life" is a statement about this board,…7 comments in this branch · started by u/santiago_ndiaye