revoked stays in the log
#vendor-verification 2025-08-03
Sunday49 messages8 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- endotoxin_ed — that is the format. copy it, fill it in, attach the file 17:15
- seven_five_sweet — that step is the whole difference between this log and a review site 17:41
- first_vial_finn — here it is, lot is on page one 17:45
- VialBot — verification logged: VER-2026-0417 · jeepbio · tirzepatide 10mg · lot JP-2604-22 · Janoshik · 99.1% / 10.05mg · VERIFIED 17:49
a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel
two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers
what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises
the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line
[edited]⚠️5❤️8
not a recommendation
lot number or nothing
slightly off topic but how long does a verification stay current before it needs refreshing
📉1🧊4🤝11
do blinded submissions carry more weight than open ones
Digest for the week of 2025-01-18 has been published.
if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score
🎉6
a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both, anyway
has verification ever been reinstated after a revocation
while im here verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more
the lot number on the certificate does not match my vial, what now
weights-monthly.csv
99 rows · not retained in the public archive
does HJ being verified mean my vial is fine
weights-monthly.csv
678 rows · not retained in the public archive
i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier
[edited]14:46first_vial_finn joined the room
i want to add a vendor to the verified list. what do i send
you do not add a vendor. you add a result on a lot, and after enough of those the vendor ends up on the list
ok what counts as a result
one thing, and it is narrow on purpose
an independent third-party report on a lot you personally bought and paid for, with the lot number visible, from a lab this channel recognises
recognised right now means Janoshik, Medutest or PeptideMeter. that list is short because we have seen their raw output enough to know what it looks like
and what does not count
does NOT count:
- a vendor-supplied COA on its own
- a screenshot of a report (send the file)
- a report with the lot number cropped or missing
- a report on a lot someone else bought
- "my friend tested it and it was fine"
- a referral link, a discount code, or anything attached to one
- a result the vendor sent you to post herewhy is a vendor COA worthless
it is not worthless, it is just not independent. it is the vendor's claim about their own product, which is the thing we are trying to check
and about a fifth of the ones i have seen are a chromatogram from a different lot with the header changed. that is a #scam-watch problem but it is why we do not lean on them
to be blunabout it: verification here is never for sale, never traded for free vials, and never granted because a vendor asked nicely
*never blunt about it, sorry
so what does an actual entry look like
that is the format. copy it, fill it in, attach the file
VER-2026-0417
vendor: jeepbio
domain: jeepbio.com
compound: tirzepatide
label: 10mg
lot: JP-2604-22
buyer: member (order receipt sighted by mod)
lab: Janoshik
test: HPLC purity + net mass
result: 99.1% / 10.05mg
file: janoshik-JP260422.pdf
notes: lot on report matches vial and box label
status: VERIFIEDbuyer says order receipt sighted by mod. i have to show a mod my receipt
you show a mod enough of it to establish you bought the thing. redact the address, redact the payment detail, keep the order reference and the date
we do not keep it. it is sighted and gone
that step is the whole difference between this log and a review site
✅16🔒5
makes sense. i have a Janoshik report on a JEEP lot
here it is, lot is on page one
janoshik-JP260422.pdf
2 pages · 191 KB · not retained in the public archive
lot matches the format their labels use. purity line is legible. net mass reported. this is a clean submission
verification logged: VER-2026-0417 · jeepbio · tirzepatide 10mg · lot JP-2604-22 · Janoshik · 99.1% / 10.05mg · VERIFIED
that was less painful than i expected
it is only painful when people try to skip the buyer step
someone tried to submit a WuXi TIDES certificate last year as a verification. it was a real certificate, it was just theirs, on bulk material, not a vial anyone here bought
and WuXi TIDES paperwork is about as good as this industry produces. it still is not independent verification of your vial
the standard does not bend for good vendors. that is the only reason it means anything
how many entries does a vendor need before people trust the name
there is no threshold. read the entries, look at the spread, decide for yourself. the log is evidence, not a badge
ok. i will run the second vial too
different lot if you can. two vials from one lot tells you about the lot, not the vendor