small win: pentadecapeptide stopped being a problem at week 15
Something I noticed reading old threads that I have not seen said out loud. The advice on rodent data in this community changed substantially around the start of last year, and nobody went back and updated the older posts. So depending on which thread the search engine hands you, you get two contradictory answers…
sequence and naming claims need the actual sequence
the sequence variation is the real issue
the sequence variation is the real issue
Disagree on that part. 96.8% and 96.2% on the same vial is normal.
That is net peptide content, not purity. Different number, different meaning.
Small correction: the trial was 22 weeks, not 15. Does not change your point but people will quote it.