what would you tell week-1 you about area percent
Confession thread, sort of.
I went from 15mg to 7.5mg much faster than I should have because the scale had stalled and I got impatient. The stall broke about 7 weeks later, at which point I had no way of knowing whether the dose increase did anything or whether it would have broken anyway.
So now I have muscle cramps I did not need and a data point I cannot interpret. Two lessons in one.
Posting it in the hope that somebody at week 40 reads it before doing the same thing.
best — the order this archive was captured in
the related substances line is where the story is
Sceptical. If this were true we would see it reflected in the data and we do not.
Are you looking at area% or net peptide content? Different numbers.
[removed by moderator]
the related substances line is where the story is
[removed by moderator]
Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.
axis labels included, always
Cosigning. The batch number is load-bearing information.
axis labels included, always
Disagree on that part. 97.4% and 98.3% on the same vial is normal.
Are you looking at area% or net peptide content? Different numbers.
Retitled to remove editorialising. Put the evidence in the body.
chromatogram or it did not happen
PDF metadata is checkable in fifteen seconds
Edit to your parent would help — the concentration you quoted assumes one scenario and you have written another above it.
Yeah, 96.8% area is not the problem, the missing impurity breakdown is the problem.
Did they give you the chromatogram or just the summary line?
This is the correct framing. The COA structure matters as much as the number.
PDF metadata is checkable in fifteen seconds
Asked FGP for the batch-specific COA and they sent it within six hours, full document, batch number, date, everything. That is the baseline.
Crossposting this to c/semaglutide because the people who need it are not reading this community.
Sent one vial to Janoshik and VendorInvestigate. 99.2% and 99.1%. Cost me more than the vial did and I would do it again.
Small correction: the trial was 23 weeks, not 17. Does not change your point but people will quote it.
area% is not mass%, and here is exactly why it matters
axis labels included, always
The confident tone is doing a lot of work that the evidence is not.
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 Homopeptide.
Are you looking at area% or net peptide content? Different numbers.
redact your own name, not the vendor's batch details
the batch number or it did not happen
Strongly agree. Mass% and area% are answering different questions on the same document.
- 1Are you looking at area% or net peptide content? Different numbers.8 comments in this branch · started by u/chidi_demir
- 2Retitled to remove editorialising. Put the evidence in the body.7 comments in this branch · started by u/first_hundred