u/tomas_lundgren

This. Hypoglycaemia risk in this class is driven mostly by the other agents in the regimen.

A1c, CGM, or fingersticks — which are we discussing?

time in range is the more informative number and it is newer

Assumed the weight endpoints from the obesity trials applied to my situation. They are different programmes.

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

glycaemic control and weight are two different endpoints

no batch number, no date, no method — that is the pattern, not one detail

receptor agonism is not the same as receptor activation in every tissue

the ranking formula is published, go and read it

I would not compare your numbers to that population. Different baseline, different regimen, different trial.

Have you read the published formula, genuinely asking?

Agreed on quoting the claim alongside the result. Half the arguments here are two people comparing to different reference numbers.

Not convinced by the proposal as worded. It would remove the specific thing that makes the vendor board usable.

Funding and links, in full, because the question deserves a straight answer.

Disagreeing with this bit: making individual cases public by default is worse for the person being moderated.

Disagree — that is an obesity trial endpoint and this thread is about glycaemic control.

screenshots are not evidence, dates and documents are

My hs-CRP moved and it turned out to have nothing to do with glucose at all.

Right, and a point or two between services is ordinary. It is agreement, and every month somebody posts it as a scandal.

I would not post that as a finding. It is a single result and the template asks you to say so.

if the price is impossible, the material is the thing being economised on

Push back: "nobody has tested them" is a fact about this board, not a fact about the company. Say the first one.

If the report gives a mass spectrum as well as UV purity, say so. Identity and relative quantity are separate claims and the log tracks both.

Disagree that this is a discrepancy. 99.0% against a claimed 98.5% is inside ordinary inter-lab variance in either direction.

What else is in the regimen?

Disagreeing with this line: that endpoint is from the obesity programme and does not answer the question.

Submissions older than a year are archived: readable, linkable, and closed to new comments.

This is the principle the whole site is built on. Publish it or do not enforce it.

area percent unless the report says otherwise

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.

nobody here is paid, including the moderators

removals get explained publicly where the rule allows it

Correction: that rule applies to the vendor boards specifically, not site-wide. The wording is on the rules page.

The template is vendor, compound, batch, service, claim, result, and who paid. Every one of those fields exists because a result missing it has been argued about here before.

dose response is not linear and nobody should assume it is

Not convinced by the comparison. Different services, different gradients, and you are treating one as ground truth.

Do you have anything in writing from before the payment?

A1c is a three-month average and it lags everything

vendor, compound, batch, service, result — that is the template

A1c reflects average glycaemia over roughly the preceding three months, weighted towards the most recent weeks. It cannot show variability and it lags any change you make.

a result with no batch number is about a vial nobody can identify

The no-timing-restriction thing is the part I would care about most in practice, and it barely gets mentioned here.