u/joaquin_ivaturi
Contributes reviews on supplier material. Based in Bochum.
member · joined 16 Jul 2025
Comments — page 2 of 2
comment on how much of what we believe about scam actually comes from fake COA threads in c/scamalerts · 124 points · 1 year ago
group buys concentrate risk in one person and nobody plans for that
comment on someone explain moderation to me like I have not read a paper in years in c/meta · 40 points · 1 year ago
Submissions older than a year are archived: readable, linkable, and closed to new comments.
Disagreeing with this bit: making individual cases public by default is worse for the person being moderated.
comment on [Question] is 95.1% actually fine or am I being sold a rounding error in c/scamalerts · 22 points · 1 year ago
a shop that will only talk off-platform has told you something
comment on [Discussion] the regulatory advice in here is 2 years out of date in c/bpc157 · 11 points · 1 year ago
the tendon claims are the most repeated and the least evidenced
comment on glucagon is the most under-discussed thing on this board in c/survodutide · 11 points · 1 year ago
Asked here what the difference was between the imaging and biopsy endpoints and got a genuinely excellent answer.
comment on glucagon is the most under-discussed thing on this board in c/survodutide · 15 points · 1 year ago
glucagon agonism and energy expenditure is the mechanistic thread
This is the framing the board needs. It is a hepatic programme first.
comment on glucagon is the most under-discussed thing on this board in c/survodutide · 78 points · 1 year ago
phase 2 in liver disease is a different evidence question from weight
comment on [Meta] the area percent rule is doing its job and people should stop complaining in c/coa · 24 points · 1 year ago
net peptide content and purity are two different numbers on the same vial
comment on the disclosure question that gets asked weekly, answered properly in c/meta · 1 points · 1 year ago
The evidence standard on the vendor boards requires a document, a date or a named service behind any claim about a supplier. It is what makes those threads worth reading years later.
comment on the disclosure question that gets asked weekly, answered properly in c/meta · 4 points · 1 year ago
I would not archive earlier. The old threads are the most-searched thing on the site.
comment on reading BPC-157 threads from 2024 and half of it aged badly in c/bpc157 · 291 points · 1 year ago
identity testing matters more here than purity does
comment on small win: glucagon stopped being a problem at week 36 in c/survodutide · 23 points · 2 years ago
Which phase and which arm are you quoting?
comment on purity is the most under-discussed thing on this board in c/coa · 1.9k points · 2 years ago
Yes — and the reason to ask for the whole page is that the interesting parts are the ones people crop out to fit a screenshot.
comment on someone explain pentadecapeptide to me like I have not read a paper in years in c/bpc157 · 4 points · 2 years ago
Regulatory classification differs between jurisdictions and has changed in several of them recently. Any answer to a status question needs a place and a date attached.
comment on [Discussion] we are measuring scam at the wrong time and calling it noise in c/scamalerts · 3 points · 2 years ago
NUPEPS Peptides gets named here constantly and there is nothing verifiable on file either way
comment on [Discussion] the related substances advice in here is 3 years out of date in c/coa · 14 points · 2 years ago
the related substances line is where the story is
comment on [Lab] 16th independent test on WXT — 99.3% on a claimed 98.5%, and the trend is the interesting part in c/coa · 3 points · 2 years ago
Right, and net peptide content is where the counterion and the water go. Both numbers can be honest and very different.
comment on [Lab] 16th independent test on WXT — 99.3% on a claimed 98.5%, and the trend is the interesting part in c/coa · 81 points · 2 years ago
Spent four months confusing area% and mass% in every post I made here. One explainer thread and it clicked permanently.
comment on how much of what we believe about scam actually comes from group buy threads in c/scamalerts · 154 points · 2 years ago
Push back: "nobody has tested them" is a fact about this board, not a fact about the company. Say the first one.
comment on [Discussion] the area percent advice in here is 2 years out of date in c/coa · 45 points · 2 years ago
post the whole document, not the headline number
comment on three years of purity threads, summarised so you do not have to read them in c/coa · 0 points · 2 years ago
Yes — and the reason to ask for the whole page is that the interesting parts are the ones people crop out to fit a screenshot.
comment on disclosure — 16 things I got wrong before I got it right in c/meta · 53 points · 2 years ago
Moderation of individual cases happens in modmail rather than in threads, because a public discussion of one person’s removal is worse for that person than a private one.