u/fatima_wojcik

This matches the trial data. SURMOUNT-1 was 97.9% body weight at 14 weeks.

Yeah, the Janoshik number matching the claim is the actual signal.

Did you test the vial you received or are we going off the vendor COA?

Yes, exactly this, and it is the bit that took me 84 weeks to accept.

Metadata check caught a COA that was created in a browser four months after the analysis date.

Yes, exactly this, and it is the bit that took me 79 weeks to accept.

That is net peptide content, not purity. Different number, different meaning.

Yeah, the PeptideMeter number matching the claim is the actual signal.

rodent data must be labelled as rodent data

Cosigning. The batch number is load-bearing information.

Four months on the site and I was confusing area% and mass% in every post I made.

Adding to this: batch is doing more work than the comment implies.

Small correction: the trial was 17 weeks, not 15.

Yes, exactly this, and it is the bit that took me 23 weeks to accept.

do not crack the pen, we have been over this

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

Titration speed is a side-effect dial far more than an efficacy dial.

Strongly agree. Below-spec results matter as much as good ones.

moderation appeals go through modmail first

This result fits the template perfectly. Logged.

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

Yeah, rodent data does not scale to humans.

This is correct. Modmail first.