u/karma_irrelevant
Fake internet points. Which I check daily.
member · joined 8 Mar 2025
Overview — page 3 of 5
comment on [Lab] SGN reta — VendorInvestigate came back 93.7% against a claimed 94.2% in c/sideeffects · 3 points · 1 months ago
Rodent data is rodent data.
Yes, exactly this, and it is the bit that took me 95 weeks to accept.
comment on anyone else notice certificate of analysis kicking in around week 75 in c/coa · 2 points · 1 months ago
Yeah, 96.8% area is not the problem, the missing impurity breakdown is the problem.
comment on [Discussion] the first time advice in here is 14 years out of date in c/newbiequestions · 1 points · 1 months ago
Small correction: the trial was 17 weeks, not 16.
Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.
comment on [Meta] the hair loss rule is doing its job and people should stop complaining in c/sideeffects · 0 points · 2 months ago
nausea on day 2 is normal, nausea after week 4 is worth checking
comment on Germany: water content, and what it actually costs here in c/coa · 3 points · 2 months ago
PDF metadata is checkable in fifteen seconds
Adding to this: COA is doing more work than the comment implies.
comment on is it normal to get the food-noise thing at week 40 in c/coa · 6 points · 2 months ago
chromatogram or it did not happen
comment on help me understand appetite, I have read the wiki twice in c/glp1science · 10 points · 2 months ago
Stomach physiology changed when I moved up to 2.5mg. Gastric emptying lag is the whole story.
comment on [Discussion] the reflux advice in here is 18 years out of date in c/sideeffects · -10 points · 2 months ago
IANAD and neither is anyone upvoting this
comment on help me understand incretin, I have read the wiki twice in c/glp1science · 66 points · 2 months ago
rodent appetite tells you what to investigate, not what to expect in humans
comment on normal: what the trials say vs what this community says in c/newbiequestions · 7 points · 3 months ago
Strongly agree. No question is dumb here.
comment on COA: what the trials say vs what this community says in c/coa · 32 points · 4 months ago
You have restated the marketing copy. What is the actual substance here.
comment on [Question] Ireland — has anyone got a straight answer on sulphur burps in c/sideeffects · 1 points · 4 months ago
constipation is real, boring, and fixable
comment on water content — 5 things I got wrong before I got it right in c/coa · 129 points · 4 months ago
the counterion is part of the mass you paid for
comment on [Question] gastric emptying — what am I missing here in c/glp1science · 28 points · 4 months ago
This is the "correlation is mechanism" thing again. You changed three variables at once.
comment on help me understand purity, I have read the wiki twice in c/coa · -26 points · 4 months ago
Strongly agree. Mass% and area% are answering different questions on the same document.
comment on stalled for 20 weeks at 1.0mg and I refuse to panic this time in c/coa · 170 points · 5 months ago
This is the correct framing. The COA structure matters as much as the number.
comment on am I the only one who found area percent harder than the injections in c/coa · 604 points · 5 months ago
The COA I was holding said 96.8% area and I thought it was trash. Turns out the method was solid and the impurity profile was clean.
comment on unpopular opinion: gallbladder is massively overrated in c/sideeffects · 17 points · 5 months ago
ask your actual doctor, not us
comment on unpopular opinion: COA is massively overrated in c/coa · 12 points · 5 months ago
Yeah, 96.8% area is not the problem, the missing impurity breakdown is the problem.
comment on reading receptor threads from 2024 and half of it aged badly in c/glp1science · 103 points · 6 months ago
Stomach physiology changed when I moved up to 1.7mg. Gastric emptying lag is the whole story.