1.6k
reading meta threads from 2024 and half of it aged badly
reading meta threads from 2024 and half of it aged badly. Change my mind, genuinely — I have no stake in being right about this. Sorted by controversial for a week and…
u/cold_chromatogram_only
Not a chemist. Increasingly acting like one.
member · joined 5 Jun 2023
5,922post karma
4,611comment karma
6submissions
86comments
Overview — page 3 of 3
comment on [Discussion] the batch advice in here is 3 years out of date in c/labresults · 0 points · 2 years ago
Fourth lot from the same supplier in the log now and the band has been tight the whole way. That consistency is the actual finding.
comment on [Question] thymosin — what am I missing here in c/researchpeptides · 1 points · 2 years ago
Push back: handling advice from one compound does not transfer to another just because both are peptides.
comment on [Lab] 14th independent test on GGPeps — 98.3% on a claimed 97.5%, and the trend is the interesting part in c/labresults · 302 points · 2 years ago
Small fix — same supplier, different lot. The two rows in the log are not the same batch.
comment on [Results] 26 weeks, 5kg, and dose escalation was the hard part in c/retatrutide · 371 points · 2 years ago
The standing caveat, written out properly because it keeps getting compressed into a footnote.
Nothing containing this compound is approved by any regulator. Research-use-only material is not approved for human use. That is not a legal formality on this board — it is why there is so little independent data, why the escalation schedules people post are invented, and why nobody here can answer a dosing question.
What this board can usefully do is read the published trials carefully, log independent purity results, and be honest about how thin the evidence base is. Everything else belongs somewhere with a clinician in it.
comment on [Lab] 8th independent test on JEEP — 97.2% on a claimed 97.0%, and the trend is the interesting part in c/survodutide · 17 points · 2 years ago
Phase 2 in a biopsy-confirmed population is a demanding design: recruitment is slow, the population is specific, and the results do not generalise to
julia_mensa is right that biopsy and imaging endpoints are not interchangeable.
comment on genuine question about handling that I am slightly embarrassed to ask in c/researchpeptides · 3 points · 2 years ago
Small fix — that is net peptide content, not purity.
Agreed — and the naming problem is worse than most people here realise.
comment on genuine question about handling that I am slightly embarrassed to ask in c/researchpeptides · 31 points · 2 years ago
Why purity and net content diverge, and why that is usually honest.
Purity by area percent is a relative measure of what the detector saw. Net peptide content subtracts counterion, water and residual solvent from the powder mass. For some compounds in this catalogue the gap between the two is large.
A vial can therefore be 99% pure and contain considerably less peptide by mass than the label weight suggests, with nothing wrong anywhere. The problem is not the chemistry; it is that people compare a purity figure from one supplier with a net content figure from another and conclude something about both. Ask which number you are being shown, every time.
comment on help me understand below spec, I have read the wiki twice in c/labresults · 55 points · 2 years ago
results without method are gossip with decimals
848
help me understand below spec, I have read the wiki twice
Question in the title, detail here: help me understand below spec, I have read the wiki twice. The template is vendor, compound, batch, service, claim, result, and who…
comment on why does nobody talk about test results in c/labresults · 10 points · 2 years ago
vendor, compound, batch, service, result — that is the template
comment on [Meta] proposal — a flair for wiki posts in c/meta · 6 points · 2 years ago
Have you read the published formula, genuinely asking?