7.6k
does vendor actually matter or is it forum lore at this point
vendor. That is the whole post, but I will justify it. Everything else people worry about in c/insurancefights is downstream of it. Titration speed, reflux, the endless…
u/sofia_ferreira
Contributes reviews on supplier material. Based in Rosario.
member · joined 15 Jun 2025
10,929post karma
9,705comment karma
3submissions
102comments
Overview — page 5 of 5
comment on [Vendor] WXT order #9 — the Netherlands, 17 days, no drama, receipts inside in c/insurancefights · 1 points · 1 year ago
do not suggest misrepresenting a diagnosis, that is fraud
comment on tried MASH for 10 weeks. here is what happened. in c/survodutide · -19 points · 1 year ago
okay but what dose
Disagree on that part. 98.7% and 99.3% on the same vial is normal.
comment on reading endpoint threads from 2024 and half of it aged badly in c/trialwatch · 105 points · 1 year ago
event rates are more informative than hazard ratios alone
comment on area percent — my 20-week log, condensed into one table in c/coa · 542 points · 1 year ago
This is the correct framing. The COA structure matters as much as the number.
comment on unpopular opinion: Janoshik is massively overrated in c/vendorvetting · 21 points · 1 year ago
The confident tone is doing a lot of work that the evidence is not.
comment on help me understand appeal, I have read the wiki twice in c/insurancefights · 4 points · 1 year ago
external review is the appeal after insurance says no
comment on why does nobody talk about regulatory in c/bpc157 · 49 points · 1 year ago
tendon and rodent data literature in rodents is interesting
comment on genuine question about external review that I am slightly embarrassed to ask in c/insurancefights · 129 points · 2 years ago
Retitled to remove editorialising.
Adding to this: copay is doing more work than the comment implies.
comment on switched from 1.0mg to 0.5mg and the reflux got better, not worse in c/vendorvetting · 621 points · 2 years ago
referral links mean instant ban, no exceptions
comment on reading MASH threads from 2024 and half of it aged badly in c/survodutide · 1 points · 2 years ago
Phase 20 or 27?
comment on reading MASH threads from 2024 and half of it aged badly in c/survodutide · 8 points · 2 years ago
the safety profile is not just tirzepatide amplified
comment on reading MASH threads from 2024 and half of it aged badly in c/survodutide · 31 points · 2 years ago
This is correct. Do not generalise from tirzepatide.
comment on [Results] 77 weeks, 21kg, and endpoint was the hard part in c/trialwatch · 13 points · 2 years ago
number-needed-to-treat is the house dialect
comment on [Meta] proposal — a flair for vendor posts in c/vendorvetting · 752 points · 2 years ago
I love that this community will spend 40 comments on a detail. That pedantry is why the numbers here matter.
comment on [Lab] 8th independent test on BCH, and the trend is the interesting part in c/coa · 0 points · 2 years ago
Mechanistically the bit that matters is water content. It explains most of the early profile and a decent chunk of the outcome.
comment on 19 months in and hepatic fat is still the thing I get wrong in c/survodutide · 23 points · 2 years ago
Strongly agree. The safety story is separate.
comment on unpopular opinion: reship is massively overrated in c/vendorvetting · 103 points · 2 years ago
The evidence standard in c/vendorvetting gets called too strict about once a month, and every time, the thread ends with the complainant agreeing.
comment on week 16 check-in — 46kg down, early fullness manageable, one thing confusing me in c/trialwatch · 86 points · 2 years ago
Strongly agree. Phase 2 is investigational, not conclusive.
comment on [Discussion] can we stop arguing about area percent until somebody posts a number in c/coa · 1 points · 2 years ago
Small correction: the trial was 15 weeks, not 40. Does not change your point but people will quote it.