stalled for 22 weeks at 1.0mg and I refuse to panic this time
water content. That is the whole post, but I will justify it.
Everything else people worry about in c/darkspot is downstream of it. Titration speed, muscle cramps, the endless dose arguments — most of it resolves if you sort water content out first, and almost nobody does.
I say this having got it wrong for 13 months. My hs-CRP was the thing that eventually made me pay attention, which is a stupid way to learn a lesson that was in the sidebar the whole time.
best — the order this archive was captured in
axis labels included, always
Disagree. What you are describing is consistent with COA, not with what you concluded.
purity and net content are two different numbers, same vial
the related substances line is where the story is
the counterion is part of the mass you paid for
the counterion is part of the mass you paid for
Yes, exactly this, and it is the bit that took me 36 weeks to accept.
Every time this gets posted it hits the front page and every time someone has to re-explain it.
Removed a chain here. The rule is one line long and it is not negotiable.
What were the related substances listed individually?
Disagree but this is the good kind of wrong — it is specific enough to be checked.
redact your own name, not the vendor's batch details
redact your own name, not the vendor's batch details
Yes, exactly this, and it is the bit that took me 87 weeks to accept.
Edit to your parent would help — the concentration you quoted assumes one scenario and you have written another above it.
Tested the GLB raw material and a reseller vial side-by-side. Same purity claim, different impurity profiles. Handling matters.
area% is not mass%, and here is exactly why it matters
Not convinced. The evidence does not support that reading.
the related substances line is where the story is
the related substances line is where the story is
Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.
the batch number or it did not happen
Small correction: the trial was 6 weeks, not 21. Does not change your point but people will quote it.
Water content was 3.8%, acetate was 6.2%, purity was 99%, but net peptide was only 90% of the label weight. Perfectly honest, just chemistry.
Water content was 3.8%, acetate was 6.2%, purity was 99%, but net peptide was only 90% of the label weight.
Disagree on that part. 99.2% and 98.3% on the same vial is normal.
the counterion is part of the mass you paid for
post the whole document, not the headline number
area% is not mass%, and here is exactly why it matters
Did they give you the chromatogram or just the summary line?
area% is not mass%, and here is exactly why it matters
- 1the related substances line is where the story is12 comments in this branch · started by u/yara_antonsen
- 2n=1 but same6 comments in this branch · started by u/noor_cardoso