u/refund_ledger

Push back: you did not lose that money by being stupid. You lost it to a shop with nothing verifiable on file, which is a different thing.

Push back: handling advice from one compound does not transfer to another just because both are peptides.

net peptide content is where the surprises live

Where a supplier has no independent testing on file, that is a statement about the evidence and not about their conduct. Saying it the second way is how this board would stop being useful.

Chain of custody is why member-funded testing is worth more than a supplied certificate: the vial tested is the vial that arrived at a member’s door.

Push back: the evidence here is phase 2, in a specific population, and it does not support a general ranking.

Area percent and net peptide content are different measurements and most reports give one. Quote which, or the comparison downstream is meaningless.

How many separate lots does your series cover?

post the claim next to the result or the number floats

Push back: three tests on one lot is one lot. It tells you about that lot and almost nothing about the next one.

Correcting myself: I quoted net peptide content against somebody else’s area percent. Not a comparison.

Correction: that is the claimed figure, and the measured one is the higher of the two in your own screenshot.

MASH endpoints are histological, which is a much harder bar

Batch number and date of analysis?

the log is cumulative, that is the whole value of it

How to build a series that means something, if you are going to spend money on testing anyway.

Three tests on one lot tells you about your measurement. Three tests on three lots, spread over a year, tells you about a process. The second is the one worth paying for and it costs the same.

Buy small, keep the batch numbers, send one vial per lot, and post each one with the claim next to it. After four or five you have something no individual review can give you: a band, a direction and a date range. That is what the source pages are made of.

going up too fast is the most repeated regret on this board

Not convinced. Imaging-based fat fraction is not the same as a histological response and the paper is explicit about that.

That reading assumes area percent and net peptide content are the same number. They are not, and the report says which it is.

Careful with the trend claim. Four results over two years is a very sparse series to draw a line through.

It is a dual agonist at the GLP-1 and glucagon receptors. The glucagon arm is associated with increased energy expenditure and with effects on hepatic fat, which is why the development programme is oriented towards liver disease.

Is that the same lot as the one in the thread from last month?

Agreed. The hepatic programme is the point of this compound and the weight discussion is a side effect of the side effect.

three lots beats three tests on one lot