u/ewan_zielinski

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

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

Slight fix: the number was 99.1, not 96.8. Decimal point, but a fairly consequential one.

The cloned ERP store used our old homepage image from 2023. Reverse image search caught it in 10 seconds.

The Medutest results I got back showed 96.8% but GL Biochem claimed 95.1%. Same vial, two services. I posted the receipts.

This is evidence. The metadata is checkable and it is odd.

the glucagon component changes the side effect profile, not just the efficacy

heart rate and dose escalation need actual measurements, not impressions

triple agonism is TRIUMPH, do not generalise

area% and mass% are not the same and this whole post conflates them

Disagree on that part. 93.7% and 99.3% on the same vial is normal.

Edit to your parent would help — the concentration you quoted assumes one scenario and you have written another above it.

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

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

Sceptical. If this were true we would see it reflected in the data and we do not.

This is correct. PCOS is real.

integration decision on a shoulder changes your number by half a point on its own

Did SSA respond or ghost you?

Yeah, the chromatogram profile matters more than the headline number.

The practical rule people converge on is 28 days at fridge temperature after first puncture, and that comes from the preservative, not the peptide.