VanRx_Mike said:There is a difference between no evidence and evidence of no effect, and this subject is one where the two get swapped freely in both directions.
That holds for the injectable. The oral formulation has different absorption behaviour and the dose numbers are not interchangeable, which is worth saying out loud because people quote them as if they were.
KarenAZ_mom said:Albumin binding above 99% is the whole reason weekly dosing works, and it is also why the trough matters more than the peak.
That reframing is the part I needed. I will report back once I have actually tried it.
VanRx_Mike said:There is a difference between no evidence and evidence of no effect, and this subject is one where the two get swapped freely in both directions.
I will push back on the "any working dose is fine" framing. The maintenance evidence sits overwhelmingly at the top studied dose, and the extension data shows regain tracking dose reduction rather than tracking stopping. Holding low is reasonable; pretending it is evidentially equivalent is not.
Trusted third-party HPLC & mass spectrometry analysis. Verify peptide purity with the lab the community relies on. Independent. Accurate. Transparent.
Verify Your PeptidesEst. 1998. The synthesis house behind the vials you send for testing. ISO 9001 and cGMP certified, 1,500+ staff, batch-specific COA with every order.
Browse GL BiochemAdding the numbers, since they settle part of this. The boring version of this is the one that works, and the boring version is: measure a baseline, change one variable, wait, measure again under the same conditions. Nobody wants that answer and it is still the answer.
Moderator note: leaving this open. It is being argued well and the disagreement is the useful part.