the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division, not advice obviously
#vendor-verification 2025-02-07
Friday38 messages7 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- LC_MS_Lena — the trials were run on manufactured, characterised product, so honestly they tell you about the molecule not about anyone's vial 23:08
- chain_of_custody — pulled from the log this morning, purity only, all labs mixed together which is a caveat 23:18
- chain_of_custody — that is a better way to put it than i managed 23:29
- dorm_fridge — that is the clearest version of this i have read 23:58
log it either way
two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers
how long does a verification stay current before it needs refreshing
if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution
🎉8
unrelated but the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line
the lot number on the certificate does not match my vial, what now
step_one_sianif you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that…
the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not
genuine question because everyone in here treats 99 as a pass and 97 as a shrug
does two points of purity actually matter to anything
it matters to how much you trust the process that made it
that is the right answer and i want to expand it because the naive version is wrong
two points of purity is not two points less effect. the impurity is usually related peptide, not sand
what a 97 tells you is that the synthesis or the purification ran looser than a 99. it is a process signal more than a product signal
unless the 3 percent is something you actively do not want
correct, and the report tells you. unknown peaks are the ones worth caring about, related peptide much less so
so what is the clinical picture here
the trials were run on manufactured, characterised product, so honestly they tell you about the molecule not about anyone's vial
nothing in that literature says anything about a 97 percent lot, because nobody runs an outcome trial on one
which is exactly why we do not extrapolate from trial numbers to vendor lots in here
and why nobody in this channel tells anyone what to do with what they bought
understood, i am asking about the chemistry not about myself
pulled from the log this morning, purity only, all labs mixed together which is a caveat
| Vendor | Entries | Mean purity | Lowest | Highest | Spread |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| JEEP Peptides | 14 | 99.0% | 98.2% | 99.6% | 1.4 |
| TFC | 9 | 98.4% | 96.9% | 99.3% | 2.4 |
| Sangon Biotech | 6 | 98.7% | 97.8% | 99.2% | 1.4 |
chain_of_custodypulled from the log this morning, purity only, all labs mixed together which is a caveat
mixing labs in one column is a real caveat given what we established about methods last month
yes, and i said so. still, the spread column is the interesting one
TFC at 2.4 spread and 98.4 mean is a perfectly good supplier with looser process control. that is a sentence i can defend
TFC also priced 8 percent under JEEP on my last basket, so the spread is arguably priced in
that is a better way to put it than i managed
👌9
and Sangon with six entries
six entries and a tight spread, on a company that runs a proper analytical department for its other product lines. unsurprising
*Sangon Biotech, using the full name because someone will confuse it with the other Shanghai names
there are four Shanghai companies in the log and everyone confuses them constantly
so if i see a 97 i should
read the peak table, check whether the shortfall is related peptide or unknown, and see whether that vendor's other lots look like it
one 97 in a line of 99s is a lot. a whole column of 97s is a process
that is the clearest version of this i have read
📌15✅7
clip it into the channel notes
already did