EndoResFellow said:

The pattern that distinguishes a bad batch from an exit is behaviour rather than product.

All true, with one condition: that curve is for people who reached the dose on schedule. Anyone who slowed the ladder for tolerability is on a different, flatter curve, and comparing yourself with the published mean will make you feel like a non-responder when you are not.

fiona_glasgow said:

Steady state is the thing most people miss.

Saving this. It is the first explanation that did not require me to already understand it. Adding it to my notes with a link back to this thread.

EndoResFellow said:

The pattern that distinguishes a bad batch from an exit is behaviour rather than product.

Pushing back on EndoResFellow here. The trial means are being read too generously in this thread. STEP populations were selected, supported, and titrated by protocol, and the real-world curves are consistently a few points worse. That difference is not noise, it is what happens when you remove the study infrastructure.

One concrete data point for the thread. Red flags, in rough order of how much they should worry you: no verifiable address, no batch numbers, prices far under market, vendor-commissioned tests only, pressure toward irreversible payment, and shipping with no temperature control.

Moderator note: a couple of off-topic posts removed.