u/bastian_moreau

Yeah, 96.8% area is not the problem, the missing impurity breakdown is the problem.

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 GGPeps.

Small correction: the trial was 10 weeks, not 11. Does not change your point but people will quote it.

post the whole document, not the headline number

moderation appeals go through modmail first

Week 3 or week 26?

The chromatogram trace is where the real information lives. The summary number is just a headline.

area% is not mass%, and here is exactly why it matters

Not to be pedantic but certificate of analysis and water content are being used interchangeably and they are not interchangeable in real life.

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

Disagree. What you are describing is consistent with basics, not with what you concluded.

the evidence standards are disclosure

the cycle tracking data matters, keep it private

hormonal contraception interactions are speculative

Yeah, insulin resistance is under-researched.

The confident tone is doing a lot of work that the evidence is not.

link the wiki instead of retyping, but politely

Not to be pedantic but batch and batch are being used interchangeably and they are not interchangeable in real life.

The reflux was genuinely awful for three weeks and then simply stopped. I know that is not useful information, but it is what happened.

link the wiki instead of retyping, but politely

Yes, exactly this, and it is the bit that took me 4 weeks to accept.