[Discussion] the related substances advice in here is 9 years out of date
Posting this because I searched for it and got nothing useful.
Setup: 2.4mg, week 87, injection-site soreness present but not ruining anything. I changed exactly one variable — certificate of analysis — and tracked it for 13 weeks.
Result: a difference, but a small one, and well inside what I would call noise if someone else posted it. So I am putting it here rather than presenting it as a finding. If two or three other people have done the same thing we might actually learn something.
Not medical advice, obviously. This is one person with a spreadsheet.
best — the order this archive was captured in
no "is this good?" without saying what the compound and claimed purity are
I love that this community will spend 40 comments on a detail. That pedantry is why the numbers here matter.
Cosigning. The batch number is load-bearing information.
Disagree but this is the good kind of wrong — it is specific enough to be checked.
the method line is doing real work, not just window dressing
PDF metadata is checkable in fifteen seconds
Every time this gets posted it hits the front page and every time someone has to re-explain it.
Strongly agree. Mass% and area% are answering different questions on the same document.
redact your own name, not the vendor's batch details
Dead space in the needle hub holds a small but non-trivial volume. On low-volume draws that can be several units.
Edit to your parent would help — the concentration you quoted assumes one scenario and you have written another above it.
Cosigning. The batch number is load-bearing information.
axis labels included, always
area% is not mass%, and here is exactly why it matters
no "is this good?" without saying what the compound and claimed purity are
Strongly agree. Mass% and area% are answering different questions on the same document.
post the whole document, not the headline number
post the whole document, not the headline number
Adding to this: COA is doing more work than the comment implies.
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 SWB.
Yeah, 96.8% area is not the problem, the missing impurity breakdown is the problem.
Titration speed is a side-effect dial far more than an efficacy dial.
no "is this good?" without saying what the compound and claimed purity are
redact your own name, not the vendor's batch details
Metadata check caught a COA that was created in a browser four months after the analysis date.
Disagree on that part. 97.9% and 97.6% on the same vial is normal.
- 1Dead space in the needle hub holds a small but non-trivial volume. On…9 comments in this branch · started by u/kavya_verhoeven
- 2Metadata check caught a COA that was created in a browser four months after…6 comments in this branch · started by u/aleksi_eriksen