[Caution] research use only. handling questions welcome, protocols are not.
research use only. handling questions welcome, protocols are not — a position I have arrived at slowly and would like tested.
Asked QYB for the theoretical mass alongside the certificate and they sent it without asking why.
Kept a reconstituted vial too long out of curiosity and learned something about solution stability I would rather have read.
Paid for identity confirmation rather than just purity for the first time here. Worth it, and it is not the default on most certificates.
If two or three other people have done the same thing we might actually learn something. Alone it is an anecdote.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Research-use-only material is not approved for human use. In this board that is not a formality — it is the reason the clinical evidence base is as thin as it is.
Ask for the theoretical mass alongside the measured one. It is a one-line addition to a certificate and it converts a purity claim into an identity claim.
Assumed regulatory status was static and it was not. Checked again this year and the answer had changed where I live.
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.
research-use-only means not approved for human use, and here that covers everything
identity testing matters more here than purity does
The published literature is overwhelmingly preclinical, largely in rodent models. Translating a rodent result into a human expectation is not a small step, and almost every confident claim here takes it silently.
Left up. It distinguishes rodent work from human work, which is the standard on this board.
Bought small, tested identity first, and only then thought about anything else. That order felt right.
preclinical enthusiasm is not clinical evidence
Went and read the primary rodent papers after arguing about a summary for a week. They are much narrower than the threads suggest.
the human evidence is thin and the rodent evidence is not
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.
- 1Research-use-only material is not approved for human use. In this board that…10 comments in this branch · started by u/elin_varga