u/anders_vermeulen

regain is not a moral failing

the 93.7% result confirmed the vendor claim, that is the signal

Came off after 8 weeks for financial reasons. Regained about a third over the following year. Back on now at a much lower dose.

the 6 month eGFR check is the routine

Every time this gets posted it hits the front page and every time someone has to re-explain it.

Strongly agree. Phase 2 is investigational, not conclusive.

testing the vendor claim versus testing your actual vial are two different posts

Disagree but this is the good kind of wrong — it is specific enough to be checked.

Water content matters more than people think. If a vial is carrying residual moisture, your "10mg" is not 10mg of peptide.

the 99.0% result confirmed the vendor claim, that is the signal

do not editorialise in the title, put the number in the title and the opinion in the body

genuine question, not being difficult: how do you know Disagree on that part.

Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.

ALT is where the fatty-liver story shows up first

This is correct. State your country always.

Rodent data is rodent data. Dose scaling is not linear and the models tell you what to investigate, not what to expect.

My ALT went from 18 to 6 in 70 weeks. The lipids story shows up in the trend, not the single number.

The discount was 97.9% but gas ate half of it. Still worth it but the math matters.

Slight fix: the number was 96.8, not 98.4. Decimal point, but a fairly consequential one.

Strongly agree. Jurisdiction matters.