What Janoshik reports and what it does not claim

Started 8 April 2025 · 20 replies · 211 hearts · read 1.7k times

YannickBrussels, BE · 8 April 2025

1.3 years ago

Starting a thread on this because it keeps coming up in ones and twos: What Janoshik reports and what it does not claim

I have read the paper and I am not sure I have understood it.

I have a practical question that turns entirely on a technical detail, and I have not been able to get a straight answer to the technical detail.

What I want is the methods rather than the conclusions, because I have been burned by a conclusion that the methods did not support.

I would like to understand the limits of this properly rather than the headline, because the headline is the part everybody already knows.

Thanks. I would genuinely rather be told nobody knows than be given a confident answer.

HettyCambridge, UK

The suppliers with hundreds of independent results have a record you can look at as a series, and a series is a much stronger thing than a snapshot.

13me too 9

SunilFacilitatorBirmingham, UK

Speaking as a facilitator: we do not name individuals in this circle and we do not accuse anybody of anything. We describe what a document does and does not show.

PatrickLimerick, IE

Sunil said something I want to sit with for a second.

The mass check and the purity check answer different questions and I did not understand that for a year.

ZebAustin, TX

Something practical: I keep every certificate I have been sent, with the lot number, and it is now a small archive I can actually reason from.

IlseMaastricht, NL

I found the guides here on reading a certificate the most useful thing on this site, and I have sent them to about a dozen people.

PerrineStrasbourg, FR

Zeb — yes, and the bit that took me longest to accept was the next part.

What I would flag about the wider market is that a name with two published results has not been tested; a vial has.

SephNorwich, UK

Something worth knowing: a representative certificate and a lot-specific certificate are different documents and only one of them is about your vial.

TasnimBradford, UK

My honest position is that testing narrows uncertainty rather than removing it, and anybody presenting it as removal is overselling.

9me too 4

TanviMumbai, IN

What surprised me was how willing the well-documented suppliers were to send the lot-specific document the moment I asked.

TorKeswick, UK

#10

No wisdom, just: I am sorry. That sounds genuinely hard.

DaraAthlone, IE

#11

I would say that commissioning your own is the only result you know the provenance of, and even then it describes the vial you sent.

HollyBath, UK

#12

Nothing to add except that I am glad this thread exists.

11me too 2

TobinCork, IE

#13

Building on what Holly wrote rather than answering the original question.

The reconstitution question is separate from the analysis question and people conflate them constantly, including me for about six months.

WystanCheltenham, UK

#14

Something I have learned is that the impurity profile is often more informative than the headline number, and it is rarely discussed.

EdwynNewcastle, UK

#15

Holly — yes, and the bit that took me longest to accept was the next part.

My approach is to look at whether a supplier's published results span years and lots, because that is a different claim from a good week.

FenellaCirencester, UK

#16

Something practical: I ask what the retention time and the gradient were, because a certificate without a method is very hard to interpret.

NadjaBelgrade, RS

#17

The services people use here are Janoshik, Medutest, PeptideMeter and VendorInvestigate, and each answers a slightly different question.

GwynforLlanidloes, UK

#18

What Nadja described happened to me too, in a slightly different order.

What I would say to a newcomer is that a certificate is evidence, not a guarantee, and the distinction is the whole of this circle.

SunilFacilitatorBirmingham, UK

#19

Holding a boundary: nothing on this site is a recommendation to source anything, and buying outside a prescription carries a risk this community cannot remove.

HettyCambridge, UK

#20

Nothing here is medical advice, and no analysis anybody can commission makes research-use-only material appropriate for use in a person.