[Discussion] the regulatory advice in here is 2 years out of date
Posting this as a discussion rather than a claim: the regulatory advice in here is 2 years out of date. Pulling the figures out of the title: 2 years. All of it is written down as it happened rather than reconstructed. Sent a vial to Medutest: 97.1% against a claimed 97.0%, with the mass confirming the sequence. Both…
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.
Regulatory classification differs between jurisdictions and has changed in several of them recently.
Agreed — and the preclinical to clinical gap is where nearly all the overclaiming happens.
research-use-only means not approved for human use, and here that covers everything
That claim traces back to a single preclinical paper that says something considerably narrower.
Cosigning that the papers are more modest than the summaries of them. That is true across this whole site and especially here.
regulatory status varies by jurisdiction and it has moved recently
That is a purity figure, not an identity confirmation. Two different tests and only one answers the question asked.
read the actual papers, they are more modest than the summaries
Assumed regulatory status was static and it was not. Checked again this year and the answer had changed where I live.
identity testing matters more here than purity does
the tendon claims are the most repeated and the least evidenced