u/chain_confirm_c

evidence-level statements required: in vitro, rodent, or human

Yeah, rodent data does not scale to humans.

Removed a chain here. The rule is one line long and it is not negotiable.

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

This is correct. Gas fees are real costs.

Retitled to remove editorialising. Put the evidence in the body.

regain on taper is expected, plan for it

Which country? Half the answers in this thread only apply in France.

Injection volume and flow rate? Those affect resolution.

Yeah, the evidence standard works.

Mechanistically the bit that matters is New Zealand. It explains most of the early profile and a decent chunk of the outcome.

the gradient is doing the separation work, not the column alone

Strongly agree. Zero human controlled data.

no group-buy recruitment, discussing how they fail is fine

Slight fix: the number was 99.2, not 99.1. Decimal point, but a fairly consequential one.

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

Dead space in the needle hub holds a small but non-trivial volume. On low-volume draws that can be several units.

the periodic argument about meta standards

two labs, two different baselines, two different purity numbers, both honest

My version of this: I was so worried about the injection that I put it off for eleven days. The injection is the easiest part.