[Discussion] the purity advice in here is 8 years out of date
test results. That is the whole post, but I will justify it.
Everything else people worry about in c/orforglipron is downstream of it. Titration speed, reflux, the endless dose arguments — most of it resolves if you sort test results out first, and almost nobody does.
I say this having got it wrong for 5 months. My fasting insulin was the thing that eventually made me pay attention, which is a stupid way to learn a lesson that was in the sidebar the whole time.
best — the order this archive was captured in
the 98.1% result confirmed the vendor claim, that is the signal
Tracking number removed. It identifies both ends of a shipment.
template required: vendor / product / batch / service / method / result
the 97.9% result confirmed the vendor claim, that is the signal
Strongly agree. Below-spec results matter as much as good ones.
Is that 93.7% area or mass?
template required: vendor / product / batch / service / method / result
Disagree but this is the good kind of wrong — it is specific enough to be checked.
I am going to push back on this slightly.
Yeah, the VendorInvestigate number matching the claim is the actual signal.
Was that the vendor COA or your own test?
[removed by moderator]
GGPeps / BPC / batch 16 / Medutest / 98.7% — that is the shape
below-spec results get logged, not dismissed
testing the vendor claim versus testing your actual vial are two different posts
Tested 4 batches from GL Biochem over 54 weeks. Spread was 94.2% to 97.9, mostly 94.2. Consistent vendor.
the 98.4% result confirmed the vendor claim, that is the signal
- 1Strongly agree. Below-spec results matter as much as good ones.12 comments in this branch · started by u/valeria_girard