my triglycerides moved and I cannot work out whether tendon is why
Posting this as a discussion rather than a claim: my triglycerides moved and I cannot work out whether tendon is why.
Asked GGPeps for the theoretical mass alongside the certificate and they sent it without asking why.
Went and read the primary rodent papers after arguing about a summary for a week. They are much narrower than the threads suggest.
Paid for identity confirmation rather than just purity for the first time here. Worth it, and it is not the default on most certificates.
Sceptical readings welcome. The confident ones are the ones I distrust.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Purity by area percent tells you the sample is homogeneous. Mass spectrometry tells you what the homogeneous thing is. For a short peptide, the second question is the one worth paying for.
sequence confirmation is the test worth paying for
short peptides are cheap, which cuts both ways
Do you have the mass spectrum?
Do you have the mass spectrum?
Disagreeing with this line: that paper is in a rodent model and it is being quoted as a human result.
no clinical trial has established what these threads assert
Yes — the rodent literature is real and it is rodent literature. The gap to a human claim is enormous and it gets crossed in one sentence here.
That claim traces back to a single preclinical paper that says something considerably narrower.
ask for the mass spectrum, not just the purity number
most of the claims here trace to the same handful of rodent papers
Which paper is that claim from, and was it in humans?
Small fix — fifteen residues, not seventeen. The sequence is public and easy to check.
This. Mass spectrometry for identity, not just an area percent, because a pure something-else is still something else.
Regulatory classification differs between jurisdictions and has changed in several of them recently. Any answer to a status question needs a place and a date attached.
Added a jurisdiction tag to the regulatory question. The answer differs and has changed.
Agreed — cheap to make is a double-edged fact and it explains a lot about this corner of the market.
preclinical enthusiasm is not clinical evidence
Disagree — that is a rodent study and you are stating it as a human effect. The distance between those is the entire argument.
What jurisdiction are you asking about? The answer has changed in several.
That is a purity figure, not an identity confirmation. Two different tests and only one answers the question asked.
the human evidence is thin and the rodent evidence is not
Sent a vial to VendorInvestigate: 99.3% against a claimed 98.5%, with the mass confirming the sequence. Both halves mattered to me.
- 1Purity by area percent tells you the sample is homogeneous. Mass…8 comments in this branch · started by u/neha_falk
- 2Regulatory classification differs between jurisdictions and has changed in…7 comments in this branch · started by u/hplc_hobbyist