u/careful_gradient
Came for one answer, stayed for three years.
member · joined 25 Apr 2023
Comments — page 4 of 5
comment on scam: the version I wish someone had shown me in week 1 in c/scamalerts · 143 points · 1 year ago
no doxxing, company registration is fine, individuals are not
comment on tried purity for 20 weeks. here is what happened. in c/hplc · 317 points · 1 year ago
This is the "correlation is mechanism" thing again.
Disagree on that part. 98.4% and 98.3% on the same vial is normal.
comment on tried purity for 20 weeks. here is what happened. in c/hplc · 95 points · 1 year ago
The related substances profile is way more interesting than the main peak %. A 98% with 18 peaks is different from a 98% that is one 14% impurity.
comment on tried purity for 20 weeks. here is what happened. in c/hplc · 52 points · 1 year ago
Strongly agree.
Adding to this: HPLC is doing more work than the comment implies.
comment on genuine question about regulatory that I am slightly embarrassed to ask in c/bpc157 · 13 points · 1 year ago
the sequence variation is the real issue
comment on unpopular opinion: integration is massively overrated in c/hplc · 92 points · 1 year ago
The related substances profile is way more interesting than the main peak %. A 98% with 23 peaks is different from a 98% that is one 27% impurity.
comment on week 36 check-in — 6kg down, constipation manageable, one thing confusing me in c/glp1women · 224 points · 1 year ago
the cycle tracking data matters, keep it private
comment on regulatory is the most under-discussed thing in c/vendorvetting in c/bpc157 · 12 points · 1 year ago
This is the "correlation is mechanism" thing again. You changed three variables at once.
comment on 14 months in and fake COA is still the thing I get wrong in c/scamalerts · 15 points · 1 year ago
Edit to your parent would help — the concentration you quoted assumes one scenario and you have written another above it.
comment on [Meta] proposal — a flair for fraud posts in c/scamalerts · 107 points · 1 year ago
This is evidence. The metadata is checkable and it is odd.
comment on [Question] how do you actually verify regain in c/tapering · 23 points · 1 year ago
Every time this gets posted it hits the front page and every time someone has to re-explain it.
comment on [PSA] chromatogram is not what most of this community thinks it is in c/hplc · 2 points · 1 year ago
Slight fix: the number was 99.0, not 98.9. Decimal point, but a fairly consequential one.
comment on [PSA] chromatogram is not what most of this community thinks it is in c/hplc · 19 points · 1 year ago
area% and mass% are not the same and this whole post conflates them
comment on [Question] Australia — has anyone got a straight answer on interval stretching in c/tapering · 256 points · 1 year ago
Strongly agree. The regain is expected.
comment on [Discussion] LC-MS is doing more work than we give it credit for in c/hplc · 61 points · 1 year ago
A shoulder on the main peak that 8 analysts integrated 5 different ways. Same trace, 96.2 spread.
comment on [Discussion] LC-MS is doing more work than we give it credit for in c/hplc · 38 points · 1 year ago
Dead space in the needle hub holds a small but non-trivial volume. On low-volume draws that can be several units.
comment on [Vendor] WXT order #13 — the Netherlands, 15 days, no drama, receipts inside in c/tapering · 106 points · 1 year ago
interval stretching versus dose reduction
comment on tried interval stretching for 17 weeks. here is what happened. in c/tapering · 2 points · 1 year ago
say how long you were on and at what dose before taper
comment on fraud is the most under-discussed thing in c/reconstitution in c/scamalerts · 0 points · 1 year ago
evidence required, dated screenshots, metadata, order records, or independent test
comment on 24 months in and scam is still the thing I get wrong in c/scamalerts · 168 points · 1 year ago
PDF metadata is checkable in fifteen seconds