3 months in and regulatory is still the thing I get wrong
3 months in and regulatory is still the thing I get wrong. Full detail below, and I have tried to keep the editorialising out of it. Numbers, in the order they matter: 3 months. Every claim I could trace in this board went back to about four papers. That was a sobering afternoon. Kept a reconstituted vial too long…
Left up. It distinguishes rodent work from human work, which is the standard on this board.
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.
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.
stability in solution is the practical question nobody asks
Left up.
rui_only_ro is right that a pure something-else is still something else.
rui_only_ro is right that a pure something-else is still something else.
Agreed — and the preclinical to clinical gap is where nearly all the overclaiming happens.
identity testing matters more here than purity does