[Meta] proposal — a flair for glucagon posts
I have had 5 orders now and I keep a table, so here is the honest summary rather than a vibe.
Material has been consistent. Communication has not. Shipping has varied by about 24 days on nominally the same lane, which matters more in summer than in February.
The independent number came back 97.9% against a claimed 98.0%, which I read as agreement rather than a discrepancy — inter-lab variance on this assay is a point or two either way and treating one lab as ground truth is how people end up in pointless arguments with vendors.
Batch number is in the comments. Ask if you want the method.
best — the order this archive was captured in
What was the dosing schedule in that arm?
Tracking number removed. It identifies both ends of a shipment.
Strongly agree. Heart rate escalation needs the actual data, not impressions.
Strongly agree. Heart rate escalation needs the actual data, not impressions.
The evidence standard in c/vendorvetting gets called too strict about once a month, and every time, the thread ends with the complainant agreeing.
What was the dosing schedule in that arm?
triple agonism is phase 2, do not generalise
retatrutide is not approved anywhere for human use, posts must not read as instructions
Edit to your parent would help — the concentration you quoted assumes one scenario and you have written another above it.
nobody should be giving this to anyone without extensive monitoring
the weight curves are unusually steep, which makes predicting individual response harder
triple agonism is phase 2, do not generalise
Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.
Strongly agree. Heart rate escalation needs the actual data, not impressions.
Which trial arm and what was the n?
Did you actually measure heart rate or is that a feeling?
the weight curves are unusually steep, which makes predicting individual response harder
Sceptical. If this were true we would see it reflected in the data and we do not.
TRIUMPH data is phase 2, not phase 3, smaller n and shorter
Strongly agree.
Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.
research use only, handling and analysis, not protocols
research use only, handling and analysis, not protocols
Disagree on that part. 98.1% and 98.3% on the same vial is normal.
- 1The evidence standard in c/vendorvetting gets called too strict about once a…9 comments in this branch · started by u/soren_nkemelu
- 2Strongly agree. Heart rate escalation needs the actual data, not impressions.7 comments in this branch · started by u/quiet_moderator