switched from 10mg to 0.25mg and the fatigue got better, not worse
Trying to settle this properly because the thread from last year went in circles.
The claim: related substances matters. The counter-claim: it is measurement error. Both sides have been asserting it confidently for about 6 months without either producing anything.
What would actually settle it is 17 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
Rodent data is rodent data. Dose scaling is not linear and the models tell you what to investigate, not what to expect.
Small correction: the trial was 10 weeks, not 11. Does not change your point but people will quote it.
No. This is the kind of confident post that gets copied into a screenshot and repeated for years. Where is the evidence.
the related substances line is where the story is
purity and net content are two different numbers, same vial
the related substances line is where the story is
the counterion is part of the mass you paid for
Metadata check caught a COA that was created in a browser four months after the analysis date. Not evidence of fraud, but worth flagging to GGPeps.
[deleted]
Yeah, 96.8% area is not the problem, the missing impurity breakdown is the problem.
Mechanistically the bit that matters is area percent. It explains most of the early profile and a decent chunk of the outcome.
This is the correct framing. The COA structure matters as much as the number.
the method line is doing real work, not just window dressing
- 1Rodent data is rodent data. Dose scaling is not linear and the models tell…7 comments in this branch · started by u/freya_baptista