regulatory is the most under-discussed thing in c/vendorvetting
sequence. That is the whole post, but I will justify it.
Everything else people worry about in c/labresults is downstream of it. Titration speed, early fullness, the endless dose arguments — most of it resolves if you sort sequence out first, and almost nobody does.
I say this having got it wrong for 22 months. My eGFR was the thing that eventually made me pay attention, which is a stupid way to learn a lesson that was in the sidebar the whole time.
best — the order this archive was captured in
What are you comparing it against though?
regulatory status changed in 23 countries, check yours
Removed a chain here. The rule is one line long and it is not negotiable.
the tendon literature looks promising but rodent-only
the pentadecapeptide rodent evidence is solid, human evidence is not
regulatory status changed in 5 countries, check yours
Edit to your parent would help — the concentration you quoted assumes one scenario and you have written another above it.
regulatory status changed in 7 countries, check yours
Dead space in the needle hub holds a small but non-trivial volume. On low-volume draws that can be several units.
Three years on this site and the questions have not changed at all. Which is depressing or reassuring depending on the day.
handlers in the community are rare and cautious
handlers in the community are rare and cautious
Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.
near-zero controlled human data, full stop
Which country? Half the answers in this thread only apply in Denmark.
Respectfully this is a sample of one presented as a finding.
This is the "correlation is mechanism" thing again. You changed three variables at once.
rodent data must be labelled as rodent data
tendon and rodent data literature in rodents is interesting
rodent data must be labelled as rodent data
This is correct. The naming is genuinely confusing.
near-zero controlled human data, full stop
Disagree. What you are describing is consistent with pentadecapeptide, not with what you concluded.
near-zero controlled human data, full stop
This is correct. The naming is genuinely confusing.
handlers in the community are rare and cautious
BPC BPC-157 is a naming problem, three things are called this
regulatory status changed in 8 countries, check yours
This is correct. The naming is genuinely confusing.
sequence and naming claims need the actual sequence
- 1handlers in the community are rare and cautious13 comments in this branch · started by u/teodor_szabo
- 2What are you comparing it against though?8 comments in this branch · started by u/marta_ilunga