is it normal to get the food-noise thing at week 40
Week 57 update. 43kg down from the start, reflux basically gone since about week 14.
Things that worked: consistency, protein at breakfast, walking more than I want to. Things that did not: everything I bought on the internet to help with reflux.
The part that surprised me is how much of this is admin. Ordering, storing, logging, remembering. Nobody mentions that the hard bit is not the drug, it is the routine.
Happy to answer anything. Please do not ask me what dose you should be on.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Flair changed to match the content. Read the sidebar before posting next time and we are square.
Not to be pedantic but area percent and related substances are being used interchangeably and they are not interchangeable in real life.
Flair changed to match the content.
Disagree on that part. 93.7% and 99.3% on the same vial is normal.
Slight fix: the number was 99.0, not 98.9. Decimal point, but a fairly consequential one.
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 JEEP.
Sceptical. If this were true we would see it reflected in the data and we do not.
Mechanistically the bit that matters is batch. It explains most of the early profile and a decent chunk of the outcome.
no "is this good?" without saying what the compound and claimed purity are
Mechanistically the bit that matters is batch.
Disagree on that part. 93.7% and 99.3% on the same vial is normal.
the related substances line is where the story is
Water content on the document? That affects your concentration math.
axis labels included, always
Respectfully this is a sample of one presented as a finding.
the related substances line is where the story is
The confident tone is doing a lot of work that the evidence is not.
The confident tone is doing a lot of work that the evidence is not.
Yes, exactly this, and it is the bit that took me 31 weeks to accept.
Disagree. What you are describing is consistent with area percent, not with what you concluded.
Small correction: the trial was 15 weeks, not 22. Does not change your point but people will quote it.
redact your own name, not the vendor's batch details
This is the correct framing. The COA structure matters as much as the number.
Water content matters more than people think. If a vial is carrying residual moisture, your "10mg" is not 10mg of peptide.
chromatogram or it did not happen
chromatogram or it did not happen
Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.
no "is this good?" without saying what the compound and claimed purity are
no "is this good?" without saying what the compound and claimed purity are
Adding to this: certificate of analysis is doing more work than the comment implies.
This is the "correlation is mechanism" thing again. You changed three variables at once.
post the whole document, not the headline number
- 1The confident tone is doing a lot of work that the evidence is not.6 comments in this branch · started by u/tidy_vialdrawer_watch
- 2Mechanistically the bit that matters is batch. It explains most of the early…5 comments in this branch · started by u/anya_moreau