unpopular opinion: most of what gets said here about Medutest is guesswork
Posting this as a discussion rather than a claim: unpopular opinion: most of what gets said here about Medutest is guesswork.
Started buying small deliberately, tested every lot for the first four, then stopped testing every lot because there was nothing to find.
Sent the same compound from QSC and SSA to VendorInvestigate in the same month. Both came back above the claim on the certificate — mine was 98.2% on a stated 97.5%.
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.
Please do not ask me what dose you should be on. I genuinely do not know and neither does anyone else here.
best — the order this archive was captured in
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.
reship policy in writing before the order, not after
reship policy in writing before the order, not after
Adding the practical version: ask for lead time, minimum quantity and the batch record in the same message. Three answers, one email.
reship policy in writing before the order, not after
Agreed — and the corollary is that "no data" and "bad data" have to be written differently. The table separates them for exactly that reason.
the interesting column is spread, not maximum
registration number, then everything else
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.
This. Ask for the batch record. The ones who send it inside a day have told you more than any review could.
Did you ask for the batch-specific certificate, or the generic one?
Did the lot code on the vial match the paperwork?
the wider-market names in the table are there because nobody has enough data on them
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.
Which lane, and what was the quoted lead time at checkout?
Fixing my own comment above: I said 14 orders and it is 39. The pattern is the same, the count was wrong.
Small fix — the figure you quoted is the claimed purity from the certificate, and the independent result was the higher of the two.
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.
Correction: that supplier is in the documented twenty with a source page, not in the wider-market table. Different evidence bases entirely.
- 1Independent testing is worth more than a supplied certificate for one…6 comments in this branch · started by u/step_count_stan