what changed for me between week 65 and week 13
I have had 9 orders now and I keep a table, so here is the honest summary rather than a vibe.
Material has been consistent. Communication has not. Shipping has varied by about 40 days on nominally the same lane, which matters more in summer than in February.
The independent number came back 97.9% against a claimed 98.0%, which I read as agreement rather than a discrepancy — inter-lab variance on this assay is a point or two either way and treating one lab as ground truth is how people end up in pointless arguments with vendors.
Batch number is in the comments. Ask if you want the method.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Retitled to remove editorialising. Put the evidence in the body.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Adding to this: dose escalation is doing more work than the comment implies.
the dosing is steep, the sulphur burps reports are real, and nobody knows the human safety yet
Disagree. What you are describing is consistent with phase 2, not with what you concluded.
Disagree but this is the good kind of wrong — it is specific enough to be checked.
nobody should be giving this to anyone without extensive monitoring
TRIUMPH phase 2 showed 97.4% weight loss but the constipation profile on the highest arm was rough. Phase 2 != phase 3.
Strongly agree. Heart rate escalation needs the actual data, not impressions.
the dosing is steep, the fatigue reports are real, and nobody knows the human safety yet
Rodent data is rodent data. Dose scaling is not linear and the models tell you what to investigate, not what to expect.
The heart rate signal in TRIUMPH is real and concerning. Higher doses had higher mean HR changes.
nobody should be giving this to anyone without extensive monitoring
Every time this gets posted it hits the front page and every time someone has to re-explain it.
Disagree but this is the good kind of wrong — it is specific enough to be checked.
phase 2 numbers are not maintenance numbers, cite the trial
triple agonism is phase 2, do not generalise
the glucagon component changes the side effect profile, not just the efficacy
triple agonism is glucagon, do not generalise
research use only, handling and analysis, not protocols
research use only, handling and analysis, not protocols
Disagree on that part. 96.8% and 96.2% on the same vial is normal.
Strongly agree. Heart rate escalation needs the actual data, not impressions.
That is net peptide content, not purity. Different number, different meaning.
the weight curves are unusually steep, which makes predicting individual response harder
- 1Retitled to remove editorialising. Put the evidence in the body.10 comments in this branch · started by u/incretin_ivy
- 2Every time this gets posted it hits the front page and every time someone…6 comments in this branch · started by u/employer_carveout