[Discussion] we are measuring area percent at the wrong time and calling it noise
area percent. That is the whole post, but I will justify it.
Everything else people worry about in c/sideeffects is downstream of it. Titration speed, muscle cramps, the endless dose arguments — most of it resolves if you sort area percent out first, and almost nobody does.
I say this having got it wrong for 24 months. My triglycerides 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
the batch number or it did not happen
Are you looking at area% or net peptide content? Different numbers.
This is an urgent-care question wearing a forum question's clothes. Please contact a clinician rather than waiting for replies.
Asked TFC for the batch-specific COA and they sent it within six hours, full document, batch number, date, everything. That is the baseline.
Cosigning. The batch number is load-bearing information.
Sceptical. If this were true we would see it reflected in the data and we do not.
Sceptical.
Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.
post the whole document, not the headline number
redact your own name, not the vendor's batch details
the batch number or it did not happen
Are you looking at area% or net peptide content? Different numbers.
the related substances line is where the story is
Sceptical. If this were true we would see it reflected in the data and we do not.
Titration speed is a side-effect dial far more than an efficacy dial.
Titration speed is a side-effect dial far more than an efficacy dial.
Disagree on that part. 98.7% and 98.9% on the same vial is normal.
Sceptical. If this were true we would see it reflected in the data and we do not.
Cosigning. The batch number is load-bearing information.
the batch number or it did not happen
the method line is doing real work, not just window dressing
the method line is doing real work, not just window dressing
Disagree on that part. 93.7% and 99.3% on the same vial is normal.
No. This is the kind of confident post that gets copied into a screenshot and repeated for years. Where is the evidence.
Yeah, 96.8% area is not the problem, the missing impurity breakdown is the problem.
purity and net content are two different numbers, same vial
purity and net content are two different numbers, same vial
Disagree on that part. 98.7% and 98.3% on the same vial is normal.
That is net peptide content, not purity. Different number, different meaning.
Water content on the document? That affects your concentration math.
purity and net content are two different numbers, same vial Disagree on that part.
Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.
- 1the batch number or it did not happen9 comments in this branch · started by u/laila_wojcik
- 2purity and net content are two different numbers, same vial6 comments in this branch · started by u/cormac_pereira