thats evidence
| Evidence | Counts? |
|---|---|
| Independent report, lot you bought, lot number legible | yes |
| Independent report, no lot number | no |
| Supplier certificate only | no |
| Screenshot of a report | no |
| Blinded pooled submission | yes, for the pool |
| A friend who said it was fine | no |
Channel stats, last 30 days: 126 messages from 47 members.
how do you handle a result that is good but the sample handling was poor
lot number or nothing
not a recommendation
is the verification log the same thing as a recommendation
verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more
why is a referral link disqualifying rather than just ignored
a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record
somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log
the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line
got an email from a sales desk offering to cover the cost of a Janoshik test if i submit the result here
which desk
not one of the names in the log. small site, three months old, i had never contacted them
then it is two rule breaks in one email. unsolicited sales contact, and buying a log entry
forward the headers to the mods and put the domain in #scam-watch. do not reply to it
already not replying
why is it a problem if the test is real though. the lab still measures whatever is in the vial
good question and the answer is not obvious, so it is worth spelling out
if the vendor pays, the vendor chooses the vial. they will send you the best vial from the best lot they own
the number will be real and it will describe a vial nobody could have bought
we have a whole channel for what vendors want us to see. it is called their homepage
ok that lands
this is the one rule i wrote down before there was a log. nothing here is for sale, including free
the moment a verification can be bought, every entry in the archive becomes worthless retroactively, including the honest ones
what about the softer versions. a vendor sending a free sample with a paid order
you can accept whatever you like as a customer. you cannot submit a free vial as a verification entry
the entry needs a receipt for the specific lot. that is the whole mechanism
and this is why the log grows slowly. it is not gatekeeping, it is just expensive to do properly
while we are here, what happens to the other kinds of non-evidence
rejected this quarter, with reasons:
12 x vendor COA only, no independent report
7 x screenshot instead of the report file
5 x report with lot number cropped out
4 x "a friend of mine tested it, came back 99"
3 x submission arriving with a referral code attached
2 x report on a lot the submitter had not bought
1 x vendor submitting on their own behalf
total rejected 34, total logged 1934 rejected and 19 logged. brutal
and every one of the 34 was probably a well-meaning person. the standard is not about suspicion, it is about what a number can support
the friend one is the one i feel bad about rejecting
so do i. it is also completely unusable. i cannot see the report, the lot, or the receipt, and i cannot ask the friend anything
one data point is one data point. zero data points wearing a jumper is not a data point
who is actually in the log properly then
| Vendor | Entries | Distinct lots | Labs used | Revoked lots |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shanghai ERP | 6 | 6 | Janoshik, Medutest | 0 |
| QYAOBIO | 4 | 4 | Janoshik | 0 |
| Homopeptide | 11 | 9 | all three | 2 |
| Qingdao Saber | 5 | 5 | Janoshik, PeptideMeter | 0 |
Homopeptide has the most entries and the most revocations
both, and those facts are related. people test them more because the variance is known, so more problems surface
a vendor with zero revoked lots and two entries has not been tested, it has been ignored. do not confuse the two
quarterly log summary exported · 19 entries logged, 34 submissions rejected, 2 lots revoked, 0 vendors delisted
the export, if anyone wants to check my arithmetic
i will actually read this
somebody finally will