-78
[Question] NZ unfunded means full price. is anyone actually paying that.
Quick one. Canada here. Australia works very differently where I live than in the threads that dominate the front page, and I keep seeing people confidently given…
u/valeria_girard
Contributes reviews on supplier material. Based in Mysuru.
member · joined 15 Jun 2025
2,574post karma
4,789comment karma
5submissions
54comments
comment on [Question] NZ unfunded means full price. is anyone actually paying that. in c/glp1aus · 4 points · 3 days ago
no naming compounders operating against current rules
comment on [Question] NZ unfunded means full price. is anyone actually paying that. in c/glp1aus · 6 points · 3 days ago
the 2024 compounding rule change closed a major route overnight
comment on [Below Spec] 61.2% on a vial that shipped with a 99% COA in c/labresults · 1 points · 9 days ago
the Medutest and PeptideMeter results differ by 4 points, both inside inter-lab variance
comment on [COA] what does "related substances 1.4%" actually mean for my vial in c/coa · 6 points · 12 days ago
the batch number or it did not happen
comment on identity and quantity are two questions and most COAs answer one in c/coa · -5 points · 1 months ago
no "is this good?" without saying what the compound and claimed purity are
comment on why does nobody talk about purity in c/coa · 1 points · 1 months ago
Mechanistically the bit that matters is related substances.
Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.
comment on reading area percent threads from 2024 and half of it aged badly in c/coa · 328 points · 2 months ago
Water content on the document? That affects your concentration math.
0
New Zealand: the version I wish someone had shown me in week 1
Something I noticed reading old threads that I have not seen said out loud. The advice on New Zealand in this community changed substantially around the start of last…
comment on [Question] Sweden — has anyone got a straight answer on interval stretching in c/tapering · 31 points · 2 months ago
Disagree. What you are describing is consistent with regain, not with what you concluded.
comment on test results — 23 things I got wrong before I got it right in c/labresults · 3 points · 3 months ago
The VendorInvestigate result at 97.4% was below the 97.2% claim. MKM retested at their cost and came back 97.4%. Logged as resolved.
comment on test results — 23 things I got wrong before I got it right in c/labresults · 3 points · 3 months ago
Is that 96.8% area or mass?
comment on test results — 23 things I got wrong before I got it right in c/labresults · 5 points · 3 months ago
Tested 23 batches from QSC over 60 weeks. Spread was 98.7% to 98.9, mostly 98.7. Consistent vendor.
77
test results — 23 things I got wrong before I got it right
Medutest. That is the whole post, but I will justify it. Everything else people worry about in c/coa is downstream of it. Titration speed, muscle cramps, the endless…
comment on am I the only one who found test results harder than the injections in c/labresults · 135 points · 3 months ago
Is that 93.7% area or mass?
comment on interval stretching is the most under-discussed thing in c/compounding in c/tapering · 18 points · 4 months ago
Strongly agree. The regain is expected.
comment on help me understand purity, I have read the wiki twice in c/coa · 34 points · 4 months ago
Cosigning. The batch number is load-bearing information.
comment on small win: test results stopped being a problem at week 16 in c/labresults · 12 points · 5 months ago
Mechanistically the bit that matters is below spec. It explains most of the early profile and a decent chunk of the outcome.
comment on [Results] 67 weeks, 11kg, and Australia was the hard part in c/glp1aus · 46 points · 5 months ago
Week 78 for me and the honest summary is: 19kg down, early fullness manageable, and I have thought about food maybe four times today.
comment on unpopular opinion: COA is massively overrated in c/coa · 19 points · 5 months ago
area% is not mass%, and here is exactly why it matters