u/yara_bakken

Strongly agree. Largest single impurity tells a different story than total purity.

Did they post the raw trace or just the summary?

axis labels included, always

off-label use data is different from approved-indication data

Mechanistically the bit that matters is LC-MS. It explains most of the early profile and a decent chunk of the outcome.

Strongly agree. Phase 2 is investigational, not conclusive.

a round-robin on baseline integration would be genuinely useful

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

This is correct. Discontinuation data is real.

state the method: column, gradient, detection wavelength, injection volume

STEP, SURMOUNT, SURPASS, SELECT, FLOW, TRIUMPH — read the appendix

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

chromatogram or it did not happen

Is that absolute or relative risk reduction?

event rates are more informative than hazard ratios alone

do not editorialise in the title, put the number in the title and the opinion in the body

the detector wavelength matters more than people think

the 98.7% result confirmed the vendor claim, that is the signal

reship and retest is the honest way to handle a low result