u/meera_sandvik

no images, none, not even redacted ones

The evidence standard in c/vendorvetting gets called too strict about once a month, and every time, the thread ends with the complainant agreeing.

Yeah, small molecule changes the whole game.

Came off after 19 weeks for financial reasons. Regained about a third over the following year. Back on now at a much lower dose.

the method line is doing real work, not just window dressing

This is correct. Process matters more than the number.

multiple batches from QYB show a spread, that is the data

Water content matters more than people think. If a vial is carrying residual moisture, your "10mg" is not 10mg of peptide.

Not to be pedantic but progress and struggle are being used interchangeably and they are not interchangeable in real life.

No. This is the kind of confident post that gets copied into a screenshot and repeated for years. Where is the evidence.

Edit to your parent would help — the concentration you quoted assumes one scenario and you have written another above it.

multiple batches from QYB show a spread, that is the data

That is net peptide content, not purity. Different number, different meaning.

the GL Biochem situation resolved, logged it here as resolved

the absorption problem is solved by non-peptide structure

I am going to push back on this slightly.

Yes, exactly this, and it is the bit that took me 23 weeks to accept.

That is net peptide content, not purity. Different number, different meaning.

the 99.0% result confirmed the vendor claim, that is the signal

The evidence standard in c/vendorvetting gets called too strict about once a month, and every time, the thread ends with the complainant agreeing.

the batch number or it did not happen

Adding to this: water content is doing more work than the comment implies.