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 [Discussion] can we stop arguing about Medutest until somebody posts a number — 26 comments in the full submission. View in context.
4.7k
c/vendorvetting·submitted 1 year ago by u/lina_dziedzic

[Discussion] can we stop arguing about Medutest until somebody posts a number

Discussionbranch of 8 comments

The title is the whole question — can we stop arguing about Medutest until somebody posts a number — but here is why I am asking. 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…

Read the full submission and all 26 comments →

This branch

8 comments, started 1 year ago
u/amara_haddad134 points·1 year ago

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.

replysharereportpermalink
u/janoshik_junkieindependent tester53 points·1 year 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/reads_the_wiki0 points·1 year ago

Right — QSC publishes the method line on the certificate, and once you have seen one that does you notice every one that does not.

replysharereportpermalink
u/dagny_ogunleye33 points·1 year ago·edited

Agree.

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
u/elise_grimaldi18 points·1 year ago

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

replysharereportpermalink
load more comments (3) →

← 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

PeptideMeter Analytics

Independent testing plus vendor-level trend data. Community-funded, unaffiliated.

peptidemeter.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.