u/alcohol_aversion

okay but what dose of sema are you on

the 2.4mg dose is not the target, it is just what the pen goes up to

purity and net content are two different numbers, same vial

Which trial and what was the primary endpoint?

This is the correct method framing. Column and gradient are load-bearing fields.

Slight fix: the number was 98.9, not 99.0. Decimal point, but a fairly consequential one.

positive and negative reports both need the same evidence standard

Strongly agree. Resistance training counts.

Did you test the vial you received or are we going off the vendor COA?

I am going to push back on this slightly.

Which trial and what was the primary endpoint?

I love that this community will spend 40 comments on a detail. That pedantry is why the numbers here matter.

STEP, SURMOUNT, SURPASS, SELECT, FLOW, TRIUMPH — read the appendix

This matches the trial data. SURMOUNT-1 was 97.9% body weight at 19 weeks.

i am begging people to write down the concentration

the reship rate on BCH is actually pretty consistent

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 SGN.

instrument quality is less important than analyst consistency

rapid loss plus no protein equals muscle loss