This is akin to a prolonged game of "turn the image into an anomaly", with the expected nonchalance and ineffectuality. Parts feel unorganized and contradictory, like how "none of the RPC-807-1 instances gathered within RPC-807 are anomalous" yet RPC-807-2 exists, or how RPC-807-2 is compromised by reacting with water but (in the article's own tacked-on words) "not affected by water within the human body".
The tone isn't disastrous, but doesn't feel as if it were proofread for smoothness. Certain parts are too informal, such as when examples of illnesses are listed. I really didn't need a definition for "laceration". In fact, a lot of this article uses that detestable "fancy word (regular definition)" format. It doesn't feel immersive, nor does it make me grateful for the definition; it leaves me disgruntled that the writer isn't dedicated enough to work around potential ambiguity and doesn't trust my intelligence to Google words. Also, if the researchers are rattling off percentages, they better have tested those compromised needles enough to provide them with certainty. (No, they shouldn't have; it kills people. Don't use percentages here!)
Unsurpisingly, the wall of short test logs isn't exactly riveting. As per norm with this sort of directionless progression, most of it is what was in the description. However, this is where the object's sometimes-overpowered nature becomes apparent. Though it can cure RPC-018 and RPC-510, which were clearly originally written to be almost untreatable, it can't cure cancer. Hooray for balancing?
Let's be real, having some limitations isn't going to make the unlimited health serum particularly reasonable. SCP having a pill that cured everything was fine, because it was in extremely short supply. Even a substantial activation cooldown, the most basic offset, would fix a lot of this article's logic. Think about it: much of this article's meat is owed to those classic test log anomalies where certain requests would be accepted or denied, but in those articles, the anomalies had costs or risks that made the denial of these requests sensible. There's really no reason Dr. S█████ shouldn't use RPC-807 to cure his cold. Why not hand RPC-807 to a cancer patient for an infinite supply of 807-2? They could even suspend their own cancer with regular use. These possibilities become apparent at a cursory perusal of the effects, and even without using your imagination, the holes in the article's own handling are readily apparent. It's simply ill-conceived.
The use of crosslinks is nice. I'd even argue they were handled… well? Besides the aforementioned power issues, anyway. It's certainly the most interesting part of the article, but make no mistake: this article is not on the level of those it uses to bolster itself. What's the intended appeal, anyway? Uplifting? Interesting? Funny? It's not much of anything at all. The guy getting the lollipop he hated might be the best part of the article.
2/5. The extra point is because I think it could be utilized effectively in stories by other writers, granted they take creative liberties to minimize its strange localized inconsistent power creep.
