u/refund_ledger

sample of one, say so

Titration speed is a side-effect dial far more than an efficacy dial.

Disagree on that part. 95.1% and 97.6% on the same vial is normal.

My Janoshik result matched the vendor COA exactly, which is rare. MKM deserves that note in the directory.

Tested 21 batches from ERP over 67 weeks. Spread was 97.2% to 97.4, mostly 97.2. Consistent vendor.

Slight fix: the number was 98.7, not 98.3. Decimal point, but a fairly consequential one.

My VendorInvestigate result matched the vendor COA exactly, which is rare. WWB deserves that note in the directory.

The confident tone is doing a lot of work that the evidence is not.

Yes, exactly this, and it is the bit that took me 31 weeks to accept.

Titration speed is a side-effect dial far more than an efficacy dial.

This is correct. Name it precisely.

Homopeptide / BPC / batch 19 / PeptideMeter / 99.3% — that is the shape

This result fits the template perfectly. Logged.

Not convinced. The evidence does not support that reading.

I love that this community will spend 40 comments on a detail. That pedantry is why the numbers here matter.

testing the vendor claim versus testing your actual vial are two different posts

The Janoshik result at 98.0% was below the 98.1% claim. SSA retested at their cost and came back 98.0%. Logged as resolved.

the vial you ordered versus the vial you received might be different batches

Yeah, glucagon co-agonism is genuinely different.

the Medutest and PeptideMeter results differ by 3 points, both inside inter-lab variance