You're misrepresenting what's being offered here.
First of all, this is about best practice, for those who care. There's no panic. Some here don't believe sterility matters, unless it manifests as a lost ass cheek. Do whatever you're comfortable with.
But don't suggest to anyone, that it's "understood", with a wink and a nod, that this is a meaningless issue. After effectiveness, it's the next most important area of focus for peptide drug development, and the FDA.
The presence of anti-drug and neutralizing antibodies have no clinically meaningful effect on, for instance Tirz or HGH? Are you sure you don't mean they have no effect at the levels of antibodies that developed in the pharma trials, using the pharma protocol, with pharma formulations?
Or are you saying that regardless of how high the levels of those antibodies become, there still won't be an impact?
Because isn't that the point of the trials? To demonstrate levels don't rise to the point they become an issue?
Isn't that why, if pharma proposes changing the dose, or the frequency, or change manufacturing techniques, or even the pen it's supplied in, they have to demonstrate all over again to the FDA that those antibodies don't go higher, where they might become "meaningful"?
That's how seriously this is taken.
And what makes them higher?
-Increased frequency of administration.
-Higher concentrations.
-Higher levels of aggregates.
-Impurities.
So are you going to confidently assert that because the trials, using the strict pharma protocol, don't cause an immunogenic issue, the low grade product we use, at whatever random concentration, reconstituted with Amazon or UGL sourced tap water and rubbing alcohol 'BAC', microdosed on a daily basis, isn't, perhaps, going to result in just a slightly stronger immune reaction and maybe just a few more antibodies?
Because to me, we couldn't really design a better "worst case scenario" for immunogenicity than what's being widely practiced now,
How often does it seem some peptides just "don't work" or "stopped working" or induce very unpleasant or odd side effects?
The sterility equivalent of our approach to immunogenicity would be dipping your vial in a clogged hospital toilet before wiping it off on a dog's ass, and I'm pretty sure even the knuckle draggers understand that's not a good idea.
Nobody even pays attention to how they dilute these compounds, are you going to argue that's fine, and only a "bubble boy" would suggest that low hanging fruit might be a good, easy target to start reducing a little potential harm?