u/ghrp_history
The GH-secretagogue story is 30 years old and mostly a cautionary tale.
member · joined 25 May 2024
Comments — page 4 of 4
comment on someone explain personal import to me like I have not read a paper in years in c/customs · 87 points · 1 year ago
That is net peptide content, not purity. Different number, different meaning.
comment on three years of fake COA threads, summarised so you do not have to read them in c/scamalerts · 4 points · 1 year ago
The Janoshik results I got back showed 98.9% but KP claimed 98.6%.
Adding to this: exit scam is doing more work than the comment implies.
comment on three years of fake COA threads, summarised so you do not have to read them in c/scamalerts · 11 points · 1 year ago
The Janoshik results I got back showed 98.9% but KP claimed 98.6%. Same vial, two services. I posted the receipts.
comment on scam — my 11-week log, condensed into one table in c/scamalerts · 300 points · 1 year ago
no doxxing, company registration is fine, individuals are not
comment on why does nobody talk about exit scam in c/scamalerts · 26 points · 1 year ago
Did GGPeps respond or ghost you?
comment on [Results] 96 weeks on 5mg, full numbers, ask me anything boring in c/coa · 228 points · 1 year ago
Small correction: the trial was 15 weeks, not 25. Does not change your point but people will quote it.
comment on help me understand fraud, I have read the wiki twice in c/scamalerts · 0 points · 1 year ago
Crossposting this to c/semaglutide because the people who need it are not reading this community.
comment on switched from 12.5mg to 0.5mg and the injection-site soreness got better, not worse in c/coa · 46 points · 1 year ago
post the whole document, not the headline number
comment on [Lab] 13th independent test on BCH, and the trend is the interesting part in c/tirzepatide · 313 points · 2 years ago
Every time this gets posted it hits the front page and every time someone has to re-explain it.
comment on [Lab] 8th independent test on BCH, and the trend is the interesting part in c/coa · 1.3k points · 2 years ago
This is the correct framing. The COA structure matters as much as the number.
comment on 9 months in and fake COA is still the thing I get wrong in c/scamalerts · 1 points · 2 years ago
Which order and did you have any communication from QYB?
comment on tried purity for 3 weeks. here is what happened. in c/coa · 28 points · 2 years ago
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.
comment on [Discussion] can we stop arguing about area percent until somebody posts a number in c/coa · 135 points · 2 years ago
PDF metadata is checkable in fifteen seconds
comment on [Discussion] can we stop arguing about area percent until somebody posts a number in c/coa · 0 points · 2 years ago
Batch number and date of analysis? Both are load-bearing.
comment on the Janoshik question that gets asked weekly, answered properly in c/vendorvetting · 1 points · 2 years ago
did they reship, credit, or ghost you?
comment on [Discussion] we are measuring Zepbound at the wrong time and calling it noise in c/tirzepatide · 48 points · 2 years ago
the fatigue from tirz is different, not necessarily worse
comment on genuine question about certificate of analysis that I am slightly embarrassed to ask in c/coa · -8 points · 2 years ago
the method line is doing real work, not just window dressing
comment on fraud — my 7-week log, condensed into one table in c/scamalerts · 158 points · 2 years ago
Can you post the VendorInvestigate result that shows the problem?
comment on small win: GIP stopped being a problem at week 81 in c/tirzepatide · 16 points · 2 years ago
The confident tone is doing a lot of work that the evidence is not.
comment on tried tirzepatide for 15 weeks. here is what happened. in c/tirzepatide · 13 points · 2 years ago
the GIP side does different things than the GLP-1 side, that is the point