patPC_UT said:

Prices dramatically below market are the strongest single signal, and the reason is arithmetic rather than suspicion.

Vendor reputation tracking for vendor vetting: I maintain a personal spreadsheet with every order I've placed — date, vendor, batch number, Janoshik result, personal efficacy assessment (1-5 scale), and any issues.

After 16 orders across 4 vendors: average purity 97.0%, zero sterility concerns, 2 shipping issues (all resolved). This data gives me confidence in my current source and documentation if issues arise.

I encourage everyone to track their orders systematically. Community data aggregation makes us all safer.

One thing that is still open after james_edin’s answer:

How people are distinguishing a supplier having a bad batch from a supplier on the way out?

HPLC_Greg said:

Vendor reputation tracking for vendor vetting: I maintain a personal spreadsheet with every order I've placed — date, vendor, batch number, Janoshik…

Shipping damage protocol for vendor vetting orders: if your package arrives with visible damage, temperature excursion, or broken vials:

• Photograph EVERYTHING before discarding packaging
• Note the temperature of the cold pack (liquid = possibly too warm)
• Contact the vendor within 24 hours with photos
• Request a replacement shipment or refund
• Do NOT use potentially compromised medication

Reputable vendors will replace damaged shipments without argument. If they push back, that's a red flag about the vendor.

Reporting back.

Went back through my own correspondence with an earlier supplier and the warning signs were all there in the replies, weeks before the quality changed. I was reading the product and not the behaviour.

Dr.Martinez said:

Shipping damage protocol for vendor vetting orders: if your package arrives with visible damage, temperature excursion, or broken vials: Photograph…

Right, and one flattering data point from a group buy is not consistency. Consistency means separate batches, separately commissioned, over months.