Screenshot, date, order id, or it did not happen.
long-standing contributor · vetting · joined 30 Jan 2024
comment on FLOW got published and nobody in here is talking about eGFR slope in c/trialwatch · 4 points · 2 days ago
Yeah, absolute numbers matter more than the press release.
comment on [Vendor] KP reship policy actually honoured — receipts inside in c/vendorvetting · 78 points · 2 days ago
publish the 20 and say it is 20. a small honest table beats a big soft one.
comment on [Resolved] i accused QYB of a fake COA. i was wrong. correcting the record. in c/scamalerts · 118 points · 3 days ago
and QYB answered a hostile question with the document instead of a lawyer, which is its own data point in their favour.
comment on [Vendor] KP reship policy actually honoured — receipts inside in c/vendorvetting · 88 points · 3 days ago
nobody claimed it was a policy. the post literally says "two is not a policy but it is more than an anecdote". you are arguing with a sentence that is not there.
comment on HJ quoted 18 days and delivered in 17 and i want to talk about why that is remarkable in c/vendorvetting · 79 points · 3 days ago
a wide accurate quote is more useful than a narrow inaccurate one, which is the whole argument. you have restated the post as an objection.
comment on [PeptideMeter] ERP tirz 15mg — 98.4% and the cleanest trace anyone has posted here in c/labresults · 189 points · 4 days ago
The separate and worse story, for the record, is a 2025 fill-volume discrepancy that two of us reported on the same batch. They acknowledged the emails and then the thread simply stopped.
It is still marked unresolved on the source page and it will stay unresolved until somebody explains it. Good chemistry does not close an open item.
comment on [Vendor] MKM communication is slow but the material has been fine, five orders in c/vendorvetting · 194 points · 4 days ago
this matches the log. three members reported response times, median first reply 2.5 days, corroborated. it is on the source page as a standing note rather than a dispute because it is not a failure, it is a characteristic.
comment on [Resolved] the QST batch dispute — vendor retested at their own cost, numbers matched, my error in c/scamalerts · 156 points · 4 days ago
the standard everyone should take from this: state what happened to the vial between arrival and testing. "i tested it" hides a lot of variables.
comment on [Unverified] Homopeptide net peptide content came in under claim — anyone else on this compound? in c/scamalerts · 121 points · 4 days ago
this is the honest state of it. i have one number in a field where there are almost no numbers.
comment on HJ quoted 18 days and delivered in 17 and i want to talk about why that is remarkable in c/vendorvetting · 221 points · 4 days ago
10 of 11 in the audit I ran, close enough. And your point about incentives is the interesting one.
Quoting honestly is competitively punished. The vendor who says "14–21 days, longer around Chinese New Year" loses to the one who says "7 days" and then takes 19. The only thing that corrects it is a community that logs actual timelines, which is roughly the entire reason c/intlshipping exists.
Flairing this Unverified deliberately. I have one result and one other member reporting something similar, which is not enough to call anything. BPC 10mg, batch…
comment on same batch number showing up at two unrelated vendors. that is not a coincidence in c/vendorvetting · 19 points · 5 days ago
the reship rate on FGP is actually pretty consistent
comment on how many independent tests before you trust a vendor. my number is three in c/vendorvetting · 6 points · 9 days ago
order date, product, and what was tested. that is the template.
comment on why does nobody talk about hazard ratio in c/trialwatch · 18 points · 1 months ago
STEP, SURMOUNT, SURPASS, SELECT, FLOW, TRIUMPH — read the appendix
comment on why does nobody talk about hazard ratio in c/trialwatch · 29 points · 1 months ago
STEP, SURMOUNT, SURPASS, SELECT, FLOW, TRIUMPH — read the appendix
comment on [Needs Source] "lab tested" with no lab named is not a claim in c/vendorvetting · 14 points · 1 months ago
independent test or vendor COA, which is it
comment on someone explain PeptideMeter to me like I have not read a paper in years in c/vendorvetting · 8 points · 1 months ago
Flair changed to match the content. Read the sidebar before posting next time and we are square.
comment on Medutest: the version I wish someone had shown me in week 1 in c/vendorvetting · 1 points · 1 months ago
did they reship, credit, or ghost you?
comment on [Question] Sweden — has anyone got a straight answer on order records in c/vendorvetting · 2 points · 2 months ago
did they reship, credit, or ghost you?
comment on vendor vs testing — genuinely asking which matters more in c/vendorvetting · 7 points · 2 months ago
Not to be pedantic but vendor and Medutest are being used interchangeably and they are not interchangeable in real life.
Independent testing plus vendor-level trend data. Community-funded, unaffiliated.
peptidemeter.comSeveral 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.
Reference