Second pass at: What "verified" means on our vendor pages, stated narrowly posts 61–90
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1 · go to the accepted answer.
Photograph the vial and the label before opening. It costs ten seconds and it is what turns a report into something checkable.
That is my reading. Someone else read the same page differently and was reasonable.
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
Dosing and purity: a vial that is 99% pure might contain 80% of its label claim if the other mass is water, counter-ion, and excipient. Purity and content are different. Both matter for different reasons.
I would want a second opinion before relying on that.
Photograph the vial and the label before opening. It costs ten seconds and it is what turns a report into something checkable.
I would not lead a decision with this, but I would not ignore it either.
Answering the question post #63 raises rather than the one it answers.
Dosing and purity: a vial that is 99% pure might contain 80% of its label claim if the other mass is water, counter-ion, and excipient. Purity and content are different. Both matter for different reasons.
The cost of a submission is worth stating. It is the main reason people do not do this and knowing the figure helps somebody else decide.
Scoping that to what I have actually seen rather than what I have read.
Post #67 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
Reports of ordinary results are more valuable than reports of remarkable ones, precisely because only the remarkable ones get posted elsewhere.
It reads as pedantry until the day it does not.
Taking post #70 at face value and following it one step further.
The cost of a submission is worth stating. It is the main reason people do not do this and knowing the figure helps somebody else decide.
Dosing and purity: a vial that is 99% pure might contain 80% of its label claim if the other mass is water, counter-ion, and excipient. Purity and content are different. Both matter for different reasons.
The disagreement above is smaller than it looks once the terms are fixed.
I read post #72 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
Photograph the vial and the label before opening. It costs ten seconds and it is what turns a report into something checkable.
Building on post #74 rather than restating it.
Selective submission and selective reporting are the two easiest ways for a result to be shaped, and blinding addresses the first while a commitment to post addresses the second.
Post #72 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.
Reports of ordinary results are more valuable than reports of remarkable ones, precisely because only the remarkable ones get posted elsewhere.
The cost of a submission is worth stating. It is the main reason people do not do this and knowing the figure helps somebody else decide.
I have said this before in a thread nobody could find, so it is worth repeating.
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
Dosing and purity: a vial that is 99% pure might contain 80% of its label claim if the other mass is water, counter-ion, and excipient. Purity and content are different. Both matter for different reasons.
Old habit: I write down the expected answer before I calculate it.
Photograph the vial and the label before opening. It costs ten seconds and it is what turns a report into something checkable.
The short version is the first sentence; the rest is why.
On post #77 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Reports of ordinary results are more valuable than reports of remarkable ones, precisely because only the remarkable ones get posted elsewhere.
That is where I would start, not where I would stop.
Picking up post #81: that is the part I would want checked first.
Multiple services on one lot: agreement across two independent laboratories is stronger than a high number from one. Our vendor pages deliberately mix services for that reason.
This is the version I would want a new member to read first.
The cost of a submission is worth stating. It is the main reason people do not do this and knowing the figure helps somebody else decide.
That has been true for the cases I have seen and I have not seen many.
Dosing and purity: a vial that is 99% pure might contain 80% of its label claim if the other mass is water, counter-ion, and excipient. Purity and content are different. Both matter for different reasons.
Photograph the vial and the label before opening. It costs ten seconds and it is what turns a report into something checkable.
This follows post #85 rather than contradicting it.
Dosing and purity: a vial that is 99% pure might contain 80% of its label claim if the other mass is water, counter-ion, and excipient. Purity and content are different. Both matter for different reasons.
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
Coming back to post #85, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
Do not adjust a reported figure. Post what the laboratory said and put your interpretation in a separate sentence.
If this contradicts something upthread, the upthread version may well be the better one.
Reports of ordinary results are more valuable than reports of remarkable ones, precisely because only the remarkable ones get posted elsewhere.
I looked this up rather than remembered it, which is the right order.
The cost of a submission is worth stating. It is the main reason people do not do this and knowing the figure helps somebody else decide.
Anyone who has looked at this more carefully, please correct the record.
Dosing and purity: a vial that is 99% pure might contain 80% of its label claim if the other mass is water, counter-ion, and excipient. Purity and content are different. Both matter for different reasons.