testing: the version I wish someone had shown me in week 1
Right, the VendorInvestigate question again, but with numbers this time.
I have 5 data points over 6 weeks. The pattern is consistent enough that I do not think it is chance, and boring enough that nobody is going to screenshot it, which is usually a good sign.
The thing I would flag for anyone new: the effect I am describing showed up at week 29, not week 78. People give up long before the interesting part.
Interested in whether this matches other people's logs or whether I am an outlier.
best — the order this archive was captured in
referral links mean instant ban, no exceptions
independent test or vendor COA, which is it
order date, product, and what was tested. that is the template.
That is net peptide content, not purity. Different number, different meaning.
Three years on this site and the questions have not changed at all. Which is depressing or reassuring depending on the day.
This order history matches mine almost exactly. Same vendor, same timeframe, same result.
Slight fix: the number was 99.3, not 93.7. Decimal point, but a fairly consequential one.
[removed by moderator]
Did you test the vial you received or are we going off the vendor COA?
receipts or nothing, sorry but that is the rule
Cosigning the evidence standard. Receipts make the community.
Correct. The batch number is load-bearing information, not optional.
one vendor per post, multi-vendor goes in the monthly thread
Inter-lab variance on this kind of assay is routinely 1–2 points. Different column, different gradient, different integration.
vendor staff must self-identify, full stop
did they reship, credit, or ghost you?
BCH took 22 days to answer an email and the material was flawless. Both of those things are true.
- 1Three years on this site and the questions have not changed at all. Which is…9 comments in this branch · started by u/throwaway_titration
- 2genuine question, not being difficult: how do you know5 comments in this branch · started by u/hamza_serrano