u/meera_sandvik

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.

the MASH indication changes the risk calculus

Strongly agree. Mass% and area% are answering different questions on the same document.

stability after excursion is not zero, it is dose-dependent

the absorption problem is solved by non-peptide structure

Can you post the Medutest result that shows the problem?

The injection-site soreness was genuinely awful for three weeks and then simply stopped. I know that is not useful information, but it is what happened.

below-spec results get logged, not dismissed

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

the batch number or it did not happen

Disagree on that part. 97.4% and 97.6% on the same vial is normal.

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

Respectfully this is a sample of one presented as a finding.

This result fits the template perfectly. Logged.

Crossposting this to c/bloodwork because the people who need it are not reading this community.

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

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