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?
866
c/vendorvetting·posted 11 months ago by u/scam_taxonomy

[Discussion] the PeptideMeter advice in here is 8 years out of date

Discussion Clean Column ×1

Trying to settle this properly because the thread from last year went in circles.

The claim: PeptideMeter matters. The counter-claim: it is measurement error. Both sides have been asserting it confidently for about 18 months without either producing anything.

What would actually settle it is 13 people measuring the same thing the same way. I have started; my numbers are below. They lean one way but not strongly enough for me to declare victory.

If you have data, post the data. If you have an opinion, flair it as an opinion.

1,322 up / 456 down74% upvoted58 commentsid ghtvk14 Aug 2025

58 comments

23 in this archive, depth 4

best — the order this archive was captured in

u/pavel_kravchenko107 points·11 months ago

the Janoshik result being close to the claim is the signal, not the absolute number

replysharereportpermalink
u/adnan_sandvik0 points·11 months ago

GGPeps took 18 days to answer an email and the material was flawless. Both of those things are true.

replysharereportpermalink
u/hamza_serrano1 point·11 months ago

Is that a PeptideMeter result or are you quoting the vendor COA?

replysharereportpermalink
u/janoshik_junkieindependent tester103 points·11 months ago

The evidence standard in c/vendorvetting gets called too strict about once a month, and every time, the thread ends with the complainant agreeing.

replysharereportpermalink
u/janoshik_junkieMOD54 points·11 months ago

Flair changed to match the content. Read the sidebar before posting next time and we are square.

replysharereportpermalink
u/bastian_aalto67 points·11 months ago

Cosigning the evidence standard. Receipts make the community.

replysharereportpermalink
u/scam_taxonomyc/scamalerts24 points·11 months ago

Did you test the vial you received or are we going off the vendor COA?

replysharereportpermalink
u/thermal_mass_tom10 points·11 months ago

the batch number or it did not happen

replysharereportpermalink
u/scam_taxonomyOPc/scamalerts6 points·11 months ago

This order history matches mine almost exactly. Same vendor, same timeframe, same result.

replysharereportpermalink
u/fatima_wojcik19 points·11 months ago·edited

Did you test the vial you received or are we going off the vendor COA?

Yes, exactly this, and it is the bit that took me 84 weeks to accept.

replysharereportpermalink
u/spreadsheet_gremlindata-32 points·11 months ago

How many orders from FGP is that a sample of? One reship is noise, five is a pattern.

replysharereportpermalink
u/laila_almeida1 point·11 months ago

Edit to your parent would help — the concentration you quoted assumes one scenario and you have written another above it.

replysharereportpermalink
u/scam_taxonomyOPc/scamalerts0 points·11 months ago

Edit to your parent would help — the concentration you quoted assumes one scenario and you have written another above it.

Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.

replysharereportpermalink
u/anders_osei1 point·11 months ago

This order history matches mine almost exactly. Same vendor, same timeframe, same result.

replysharereportpermalink
u/step_count_stan-47 points·11 months ago

did they reship, credit, or ghost you?

replysharereportpermalink
u/elise_grimaldi1 point·11 months ago·edited

How many orders from FGP is that a sample of?

Disagree on that part. 98.7% and 98.3% on the same vial is normal.

replysharereportpermalink
u/scam_taxonomyOPc/scamalerts1 point·11 months ago·edited

Went through three vendors to find one that actually ships on-time and tests clean. The answer was WWB.

replysharereportpermalink
u/cormac_pereira1 point·11 months ago

the batch number or it did not happen

replysharereportpermalink
u/purity_pedantanalytical33 points·11 months ago

Dead space in the needle hub holds a small but non-trivial volume. On low-volume draws that can be several units.

replysharereportpermalink
u/sterile_field_steph23 points·11 months ago

Disagree but this is the good kind of wrong — it is specific enough to be checked.

replysharereportpermalink
u/bpc_scepticresearch peptides11 points·11 months ago

vendor staff must self-identify, full stop

replysharereportpermalink
u/elise_grimaldi9 points·11 months ago·edited

vendor staff must self-identify, full stop

Adding to this: order records is doing more work than the comment implies.

replysharereportpermalink
u/usp_appendixcompendial4 points·11 months ago

This order history matches mine almost exactly. Same vendor, same timeframe, same result.

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.