[Lab] identity confirmed but net peptide content was 71%
Trying to settle this properly because the thread from last year went in circles.
The claim: tendon matters. The counter-claim: it is measurement error. Both sides have been asserting it confidently for about 5 months without either producing anything.
What would actually settle it is 7 people measuring the same thing the same way. I have started; my numbers are below. They lean one way but not strongly enough for me to declare victory.
If you have data, post the data. If you have an opinion, flair it as an opinion.
best — the order this archive was captured in
The thing nobody prepared me for was the quiet. Not the appetite, the quiet. The constant negotiation in my head about food just stopped.
the sequence variation is the real issue
tendon and rodent data literature in rodents is interesting
rodent data must be labelled as rodent data
the regulatory rodent evidence is solid, human evidence is not
the sequence variation is the real issue
Flair changed to match the content. Read the sidebar before posting next time and we are square.
Flair changed to match the content.
Disagree on that part. 98.7% and 99.3% on the same vial is normal.
Yeah, rodent data does not scale to humans.
the sequence variation is the real issue
This is correct. The naming is genuinely confusing.
Did anything else change in the same window?
My version of this: I was so worried about the injection that I put it off for eleven days. The injection is the easiest part.
Yeah, rodent data does not scale to humans.
rodent data must be labelled as rodent data
Yeah, rodent data does not scale to humans.
Slight fix: the number was 98.7, not 98.9. Decimal point, but a fairly consequential one.
Yeah, rodent data does not scale to humans.
regulatory status changed in 19 countries, check yours
regulatory status changed in 19 countries, check yours
Yes, exactly this, and it is the bit that took me 59 weeks to accept.
rodent data must be labelled as rodent data
Came off after 83 weeks for financial reasons. Regained about a third over the following year. Back on now at a much lower dose.
Titration speed is a side-effect dial far more than an efficacy dial.
What are you comparing it against though?
BPC BPC-157 is a naming problem, three things are called this
BPC pentadecapeptide is a naming problem, three things are called this
Three years on this site and the questions have not changed at all. Which is depressing or reassuring depending on the day.
This is correct. The naming is genuinely confusing.
rodent data must be labelled as rodent data
- 1the regulatory rodent evidence is solid, human evidence is not7 comments in this branch · started by u/dose_diary_dana
- 2This is correct. The naming is genuinely confusing.7 comments in this branch · started by u/zaid_eriksen