🍪 CompoundTalk uses cookies to improve your experience, analyze traffic, and personalize content. By continuing to use this site, you agree to our Cookie Policy.
Evidence-based GLP-1 & peptide discussion since 2023
ForumsVendor Reviews[REVIEW] QSC — my results so far Page 2

[REVIEW] QSC — my results so far

Dr.RheumBOS Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 7:15 PM 52 replies 2,374 viewsPage 2 of 11
Dr.PeteFamMed
Senior Member
2,012
9,234
Jan 2024
Minneapolis, MN
Jul 24, 2024 at 12:24 AM#6
raises a completely valid point and I want to be clear: this compilation is PURITY data only. It tells us the peptide is what it claims to be at the concentration it claims. It does NOT tell us about sterility, endotoxins, or other contaminants. That said, we do have 3 endotoxin tests in the community: - Batch TZ-2025-1022: 0.8 EU/mL (passing, limit is <5 EU/mL) - Batch TZ-2025-1189: 1.2 EU/mL (passing) - Batch TZ-2026-0015: 0.5 EU/mL (passing) Small sample size but encouraging. I'd love to see more people add the endotoxin panel ($85 add-on at Janoshik).
18 13hyun_seoul, jim_asheville, matt_MKE and 15 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
LondonLisa
Member
912
3,456
Mar 2024
London, UK
Jul 24, 2024 at 12:02 PM#7
Incredible resource. I've been lurking for weeks trying to decide on a vendor and this data is what's pushing me toward QSC. The transparency and community verification here is unlike anything I've seen for other vendors. Question: is there a similar compilation for any other vendor? I'm also considering GGPeps and would love to see side-by-side data.
17 12Dr.MetabolicMD, RetaRick_CA, JenPlateau and 14 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
Dr.PeteFamMed
Senior Member
2,012
9,234
Jan 2024
Minneapolis, MN
Jul 24, 2024 at 11:40 PM#8
I have a smaller GGPeps compilation — only 11 tests so far (they're newer to the scene). Their tirz averages 96.8% and sema 95.2%. Solid numbers but the sample size is too small to draw strong conclusions yet. I'll post a GGPeps-specific compilation once I hit 20+ data points. For now, QSC has the deepest testing pool by far. It's the most "proven" option from a data perspective. That doesn't mean other vendors are bad — just less verified. 📋
16 11LindaRN_retired, tommy_boulder, hyun_seoul and 13 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report

PeptideMeter — Independent Peptide Analytics

Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.

View Results
Dr.PathRoch
Member
456
2,123
Jun 2024
Rochester, MN
Jul 25, 2024 at 11:18 AM#9
Just want to chime in and say this compilation has been invaluable. When I got my 98.7% result I was able to immediately compare it against 50+ other results to see where it fell. That context matters. Everyone: if you send a sample to Janoshik, PLEASE share your results (positive OR negative) with Dr.RheumBOS for the spreadsheet. The more data points we have, the better decisions we can all make. This is harm reduction through data. 🔬
15 10SaraMom3, Dr.MetabolicMD, RetaRick_CA and 12 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report

Similar Threads

[REVIEW] WWB — 8 months, 6 orders, all Janoshik tested7 replies
[REVIEW] QSC — consistency and pricing, 10+ orders deep5 replies
[REVIEW] GGPeps — 6 orders, all independently tested3 replies
Which vendor should I go with? Side-by-side comparison3 replies
How do you vet a new vendor? My quality checklist9 replies
ForumsNewTrendingMembersAccount

Log In

Forgot password?
No account? Register