🍪 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
ForumsCOA & Analytical TestingHas anyone dealt with janoshik vs in-house testing? Page 5

Has anyone dealt with janoshik vs in-house testing?

Dr.AddMedPHL Wed, Jun 4, 2025 at 10:18 PM 29 replies 1,689 viewsPage 5 of 6
PeptideSynthNJ
Member
234
1,234
Aug 2024
Princeton, NJ
Jun 10, 2025 at 5:24 PM#21
labquiet_amy said:
I tested my certificates of analysis batch through Janoshik — 99.2% purity.

COA red flags for certificates of analysis — here's what to look for when reviewing a Certificate of Analysis:

  • No HPLC data: If there's no chromatography graph, it's not a real COA
  • Exact 100% purity: Suspicious — real testing always shows slight variation
  • No batch number: Can't trace back to specific production
  • No endotoxin testing: For injectables, this is essential
  • Template looks like it was made in Word: Professional labs have standardized formats

I have seen fake COAs that are literally photoshopped. Always verify independently if possible.

42 15wanda_boise, NurseAsh_DET, BenResearch_OR and 39 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
raj_cambridge
Member
489
2,123
Jun 2024
Cambridge, MA
Jun 11, 2025 at 2:52 PM#22
labquiet_amy said:
I tested my certificates of analysis batch through Janoshik — 99.2% purity.

This is exactly what I could not find anywhere else. I will report back once I have actually tried it.

Last edited: Jun 11, 2025 at 3:52 PM
43 16DoseLogDan, SleepFixSam, PurityPaulOR and 40 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
Dr.BariatricHTX
Senior Member
1,456
7,234
Feb 2024
Houston, TX
Jun 12, 2025 at 12:19 PM#23

Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. There is a difference between no evidence and evidence of no effect, and this subject is one where the two get swapped freely in both directions.

I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.

Last edited: Jun 12, 2025 at 6:19 PM
44 17Dr.EM_Chicago, pete_RVA, CarlaRPh_TPA and 41 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report

Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards

Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.

Shop Reference Standards
BenResearch_OR
Senior Member
2,456
11,234
Dec 2023
Oregon
Jun 13, 2025 at 9:46 AM#24
Dr.BariatricHTX said:
There is a difference between no evidence and evidence of no effect, and this subject is one where the two get swapped freely in both directions.

Second this. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.

45 18Dr.KarenChen, Dr.NateNeph, PharmD_Rodriguez and 42 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
Dr.RenalNash
VIP Member
1,234
7,890
Mar 2024
Nashville, TN
Jun 14, 2025 at 7:12 AM#25
Dr.BariatricHTX said:
There is a difference between no evidence and evidence of no effect, and this subject is one where the two get swapped freely in both directions.

Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. Order of operations matters more than any single choice here: establish a baseline, change one thing, wait long enough for it to express itself, then measure again under the same conditions.

Happy to go further on any of that.

Last edited: Jun 14, 2025 at 12:12 PM
46 19maria_elpaso, anders_CPH, Dr.NutriCornell and 43 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report

Similar Threads

HPLC vs UPLC for peptide purity — method comparison study18 replies
Mass spectrometry for peptide identity verification — ESI-MS guide7 replies
Endotoxin testing methods — LAL vs recombinant Factor C17 replies
Red flags on COAs — how to spot a fake certificate5 replies
USP reference standards for peptide verification — sourcing guide3 replies
ForumsNewTrendingMembersAccount

Log In

Forgot password?
No account? Register