u/anecdata_annie
One person is not a study. One hundred people is not a study either.
member · joined 25 Aug 2024
Overview — page 3 of 3
comment on [Discussion] we are measuring area percent at the wrong time and calling it noise in c/coa · 9 points · 1 year ago
Water content on the document? That affects your concentration math.
comment on shortage is the most under-discussed thing in c/customs in c/glp1aus · 18 points · 1 year ago
The practical rule people converge on is 28 days at fridge temperature after first puncture, and that comes from the preservative, not the peptide.
comment on batch vs related substances — genuinely asking which matters more in c/coa · 114 points · 1 year ago
no "is this good?" without saying what the compound and claimed purity are
comment on TGA is the most under-discussed thing in c/customs in c/glp1aus · 17 points · 1 year ago
Mechanistically the bit that matters is New Zealand. It explains most of the early profile and a decent chunk of the outcome.
comment on stalled for 23 weeks at 5mg and I refuse to panic this time in c/coa · 180 points · 1 year ago
Strongly agree. Mass% and area% are answering different questions on the same document.
comment on New Zealand is the most under-discussed thing in c/insurancefights in c/glp1aus · 34 points · 1 year ago
This is correct. PBS listings matter.
comment on [Meta] the Australia rule is doing its job and people should stop complaining in c/glp1aus · 11 points · 1 year ago
Half-life is about 168 hours, so steady state lands around week 19–5. Practical consequence: what you feel in week 1 is not what that dose does.
comment on [Vendor] WXT order #3 — Germany, 3 days, no drama, receipts inside in c/glp1aus · 14 points · 1 year ago
No.
Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.
comment on batch — my 10-week log, condensed into one table in c/coa · -38 points · 2 years ago
Cosigning. The batch number is load-bearing information.
comment on [Discussion] can we stop arguing about related substances until somebody posts a number in c/coa · 0 points · 2 years ago
Water content on the document? That affects your concentration math.
comment on [Lab] 8th independent test on BCH, and the trend is the interesting part in c/coa · 202 points · 2 years ago
Water content was 3.8%, acetate was 6.2%, purity was 99%, but net peptide was only 90% of the label weight. Perfectly honest, just chemistry.
comment on [Discussion] the related substances advice in here is 15 years out of date in c/coa · 303 points · 2 years ago
That is net peptide content, not purity. Different number, different meaning.
comment on [Meta] the batch rule is doing its job and people should stop complaining in c/coa · 1 points · 2 years ago
purity and net content are two different numbers, same vial
comment on [Discussion] we are measuring water content at the wrong time and calling it noise in c/coa · -37 points · 2 years ago
redact your own name, not the vendor's batch details
comment on switched from 12.5mg to 0.5mg and the muscle cramps got better, not worse in c/coa · 42 points · 2 years ago
Strongly agree. Mass% and area% are answering different questions on the same document.
comment on genuine question about certificate of analysis that I am slightly embarrassed to ask in c/coa · 187 points · 2 years ago
Water content was 3.8%, acetate was 6.2%, purity was 99%, but net peptide was only 90% of the label weight. Perfectly honest, just chemistry.