[Discussion] we are measuring EU at the wrong time and calling it noise
Long-ish post, sorry. tl;dr at the bottom.
I have been tracking EU against triglycerides for 15 weeks because I could not find anyone who had. The correlation is weaker than I expected, which is itself mildly interesting given how confidently people link the two in here.
Caveats up front: one person, one lab, one assay, no control, and I changed my training in the middle of it, which was stupid.
tl;dr: probably real, definitely smaller than the threads imply, and not worth reorganising your week around.
best — the order this archive was captured in
The practical rule people converge on is 28 days at fridge temperature after first puncture, and that comes from the preservative, not the peptide.
EMA notices are different from national ones
the Spain answer is not the Spain answer
reimbursement reality differs sharply
Yeah, EU rules is usually national rules.
The evidence standard in c/vendorvetting gets called too strict about once a month, and every time, the thread ends with the complainant agreeing.
Mechanistically the bit that matters is reimbursement. It explains most of the early profile and a decent chunk of the outcome.
the the Netherlands answer is not the the Netherlands answer
EU rules is usually a national question wearing a hat
That is net peptide content, not purity. Different number, different meaning.
reimbursement costs in the UK this month
No. This is the kind of confident post that gets copied into a screenshot and repeated for years. Where is the evidence.
private and public prescription routes differ
- 1Mechanistically the bit that matters is reimbursement. It explains most of…7 comments in this branch · started by u/zaid_eriksen
- 2The practical rule people converge on is 28 days at fridge temperature after…5 comments in this branch · started by u/rt_shift_reggie