Searched first, found bits of this scattered across old threads, so figured I’d start a proper one.
I’m not a scientist. I can read an abstract and roughly follow it but that’s about my limit with GHRP-2.
What bugs me about GHRP-2 is how confident everyone is. Nobody hedges. Everyone has a protocol.
The Institute testing page has 4 published tests on GHRP-2 if you want actual numbers rather than vibes.
Thanks in advance, this community is usually pretty good about this stuff.
No replies yet. Be the first to add one.
That is the distinction I was trying to make, said better.
Genuinely asking, not being difficult: what is the actual source for that? Everyone repeats it and nobody links anything.
Respectfully I think you are reading more into that result than it supports.
To answer the methodology question directly, Purity & Testing carries 25% because it is the dimension we can measure most reliably. The full weighting is published on the methodology page.
Batch-to-batch variation is the thing people underestimate. A passing result certifies one lot, not a product line, and vendors know most buyers do not make that distinction.
VI VialMethod · · 28 found helpful
The figure everyone quotes traces back to a single 2019 paper with n=8. It gets cited as though it were established and it is really not.