u/janoshik_junkie
I pay for third-party tests so you do not have to. Results posted regardless of outcome.
long-standing contributor · independent tester · joined 14 Feb 2024
comment on [Vendor] JEEP six orders in, zero problems, and i am suspicious of my own luck in c/vendorvetting · 412 points · 2 days ago
Not going to talk you out of it. That claim-versus-measured agreement is the strongest signal available and yours is tight in both directions.
The thing I would say: agreement matters more than the absolute number. A vendor claiming 99.0 and delivering 98.9 is telling you something about their process. A vendor claiming 99.5 and delivering 98.6 is telling you something about their marketing department.
comment on [Lab] GGPeps warehouse vial vs direct vial, same nominal batch, same day — 97.4 vs 98.6 in c/labresults · 112 points · 2 days ago
yes, and it is on the source page as a standing note. warehouse is faster, direct has tested marginally better twice, and two is not a finding.
comment on is 96.8% area% actually fine or am i being sold a rounding error in c/coa · 88 points · 2 days ago
"either way" is the correct commitment and most people do not make it. good.
comment on reta phase 2 was −24.2% at 48 weeks and people quote it like it is a maintenance number in c/retatrutide · 71 points · 2 days ago
separately: reta purity results are more variable between labs than sema or tirz in my log. edit: 98.9, 98.1, 97.9, 97.6 across four vendors, which is a wider band than i see on the older compounds.
comment on [Vendor] JEEP six orders in, zero problems, and i am suspicious of my own luck in c/vendorvetting · 156 points · 2 days ago
he tested two of six and posted both. that is a higher testing rate than about 95% of this community manages. what would satisfy you exactly
comment on [Janoshik] SSA tirz 10mg — 99.1%, third batch in a row above 99 in c/labresults · 187 points · 2 days ago
"ask me again at six" is the right amount of confidence and i should have written that instead of the last line.
comment on [Below Spec] 61.2% on a vial i had already been using for six weeks in c/labresults · 87 points · 3 days ago
worth noting the service did its job perfectly here. the number was correct, the interpretation was the hard part, and that is almost always the case.
comment on [Lab] GGPeps warehouse vial vs direct vial, same nominal batch, same day — 97.4 vs 98.6 in c/labresults · 167 points · 3 days ago
this is the confound i cannot rule out from here and you have named it better than i did. the batch number is a label, not a chain of custody.
comment on [Resolved] the QST batch dispute — vendor retested at their own cost, numbers matched, my error in c/scamalerts · 112 points · 3 days ago
adding a chain-of-custody line to the c/labresults template. arrival date, storage, reconstituted or not, punctures. four fields.
comment on [Lab] GL Biochem raw material vs a reseller vial of nominally the same compound in c/coa · 93 points · 4 days ago
this matches what i found on a different compound in 2025 — raw material 0.7 higher than a reseller vial of the same nominal batch. edit: same delta, different compound, which is either a coincidence or a pattern and two points cannot tell you which.
comment on [Appeal] the external review process nobody tells you exists in c/insurancefights · 4 points · 4 days ago
appeal letter templates are in the wiki
Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.
comment on how many independent tests before you trust a vendor. my number is three. in c/vendorvetting · 356 points · 5 days ago
Four for me, and specifically four across at least a year, because I want to see whether the process drifts.
The BCH record is the example that set my number. Twelve documents in the audit, all complete, results clustered — that is a process. Compare that with a vendor whose six results run 98.4, 97.9, 96.2, 94.8, 98.1, 93.7. The mean of that second set is not a useful number about anything. It is two vendors wearing one name.
comment on QSC: six tests, 4.7 points of spread, and the best one is as good as anything in the directory in c/labresults · 334 points · 6 days ago
Three of those six are mine and I will state the uncomfortable version: I would rather have a reliable 97.5 than an average of 98.5 built from a 99.4 and a 94.8.
The reason is that you are not buying the average, you are buying one vial. Variance is the thing that hurts you and the mean is the thing that gets quoted.
comment on [Denied] employer carve-out was in the plan document, not the summary in c/insurancefights · 20 points · 6 days ago
This is correct. Appeal letters work.
comment on how many independent tests before you trust a vendor. my number is three in c/vendorvetting · 33 points · 9 days ago
Rodent data is rodent data. Dose scaling is not linear and the models tell you what to investigate, not what to expect.
comment on how many independent tests before you trust a vendor. my number is three in c/vendorvetting · 13 points · 9 days ago
Removed a chain here. The rule is one line long and it is not negotiable.
comment on [Medutest] split one vial across two services, results within 0.9% in c/labresults · 7 points · 12 days ago
Retitled to remove editorialising. Put the evidence in the body.
comment on [PSA] dizzy on standing? check whether your BP meds are now too strong in c/sideeffects · 42 points · 12 days ago
constipation is real, boring, and fixable
comment on [Template] the three sentences that got my prior auth through in c/insurancefights · 1 points · 13 days ago
do not suggest misrepresenting a diagnosis, that is fraud
comment on [Vendor] JEEP six orders in, zero problems, and i am suspicious of my own luck in c/vendorvetting · 1 points · 17 days ago
Cosigning the evidence standard. Receipts make the community.