0
[Suspicious] the same signature image on COAs from three vendors
Trying to settle this properly because the thread from last year went in circles. The claim: water content matters. The counter-claim: it is measurement error. Both…
u/joaquin_ivaturi
Contributes reviews on supplier material. Based in Bochum.
member · joined 16 Jul 2025
5,503post karma
2,846comment karma
6submissions
56comments
comment on [Lab] three BPC vials, three vendors, purity all over the place in c/bpc157 · 1 points · 4 days ago
Half-life is about 168 hours, so steady state lands around week 20–5.
Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.
comment on [Caution] hepatic endpoints need biopsy data, not an ALT screenshot in c/survodutide · 13 points · 12 days ago
the safety profile is not just tirzepatide amplified
comment on [Announcement] sponsor disclosure, in full, again, because someone asked in c/meta · 1 points · 12 days ago
the periodic argument about moderation standards
comment on four accounts, same typo, same hour, all recommending the same shop in c/scamalerts · 7 points · 14 days ago
This is evidence. The metadata is checkable and it is odd.
comment on [Lab] identity confirmed but net peptide content was 71% in c/bpc157 · 54 points · 15 days ago
Yeah, rodent data does not scale to humans.
comment on [Discussion] should c/progresspics stay text-only forever (yes) in c/meta · 5 points · 20 days ago
Strongly agree. Transparency wins.
comment on net peptide content vs purity — two different numbers, same vial in c/coa · 72 points · 22 days ago
Mechanistically the bit that matters is area percent. It explains most of the early profile and a decent chunk of the outcome.
comment on [PSA] a discount code in a first comment is an instant ban and here is why in c/scamalerts · 17 points · 1 months ago
This is the "correlation is mechanism" thing again. You changed three variables at once.
comment on [Rules] no referral links. not once. not ever. permanent. in c/meta · 7 points · 1 months ago
the evidence standards are rules
Yes, exactly this, and it is the bit that took me 88 weeks to accept.
comment on the water content question that gets asked weekly, answered properly in c/coa · 140 points · 1 months ago
The confident tone is doing a lot of work that the evidence is not.
436
genuine question about biopsy that I am slightly embarrassed to ask
dual agonist. That is the whole post, but I will justify it. Everything else people worry about in c/meta is downstream of it. Titration speed, early fullness, the…
comment on anyone else notice wiki kicking in around week 64 in c/meta · 1 points · 2 months ago
This is correct. Modmail first.
1k
wiki — my 22-week log, condensed into one table
Right, the rules question again, but with numbers this time. I have 23 data points over 16 weeks. The pattern is consistent enough that I do not think it is chance, and…
comment on the exit scam question that gets asked weekly, answered properly in c/scamalerts · 57 points · 3 months ago
appreciate you saying you do not know
comment on [Discussion] can we stop arguing about wiki until somebody posts a number in c/meta · 1 points · 4 months ago
Not convinced. The evidence does not support that reading.
comment on help me understand purity, I have read the wiki twice in c/coa · 24 points · 4 months ago
Yeah, 96.8% area is not the problem, the missing impurity breakdown is the problem.
comment on [Question] how do you actually verify rodent data in c/bpc157 · 1 points · 5 months ago
research use only, no human protocols, no injection instructions
comment on unpopular opinion: moderation is massively overrated in c/meta · 2 points · 6 months ago
moderation appeals go through modmail first
comment on unpopular opinion: moderation is massively overrated in c/meta · -31 points · 6 months ago
moderation appeals go through modmail first