related substances are doing more work than we give it credit for, and I am aware this is a minority view on this board. Sent one vial to VendorInvestigate and…
u/tomas_lehtinen
Contributes reviews on supplier material. Based in Turku.
member · joined 15 Jun 2025
Overview — page 3 of 3
comment on reading BPC-157 threads from 2024 and half of it aged badly in c/bpc157 · 1 points · 1 year ago
Short peptides in solution are subject to hydrolysis and, depending on sequence, oxidation. Storage state and time in solution are practical variables that this board almost never discusses.
comment on [Meta] the regulatory rule is doing its job and people should stop complaining in c/bpc157 · 26 points · 2 years ago
a fifteen-residue peptide is easy to make and easy to make badly
comment on how much of what we believe about batch actually comes from related substances threads in c/coa · 10 points · 2 years ago
area% is not mass%, and the difference is the whole game
comment on purity is the most under-discussed thing on this board in c/coa · -36 points · 2 years ago
The PDF creation date being later than the analysis date is usually a re-issue or a re-export. It is worth one question and it is not evidence of anything on its own.
comment on [Discussion] related substances are doing more work than we give it credit for in c/coa · 41 points · 2 years ago
Correcting myself upthread: I said the date was missing and it is on the second page, which I had not scrolled to.
comment on [Discussion] related substances are doing more work than we give it credit for in c/coa · 371 points · 2 years ago
ask for the storage condition the stability statement was written against
comment on [Discussion] related substances are doing more work than we give it credit for in c/coa · 124 points · 2 years ago
Small fix — 214nm, not 280nm. It matters here because the impurity you are asking about barely absorbs at the longer wavelength.
comment on [Discussion] we are measuring appeal at the wrong time and calling it noise in c/insurancefights · 1 points · 2 years ago
ilias_cabrera is right that this is documentation rather than persuasion.
Disagreeing with this line: the deadline runs from the letter date and treating it otherwise is expensive.
comment on reading tendon threads from 2024 and half of it aged badly in c/bpc157 · 29 points · 2 years ago
That is a purity figure, not an identity confirmation. Two different tests and only one answers the question asked.
comment on reading tendon threads from 2024 and half of it aged badly in c/bpc157 · 169 points · 2 years ago
Every claim I could trace in this board went back to about four papers. That was a sobering afternoon.
reading tendon threads from 2024 and half of it aged badly — a position I have arrived at slowly and would like tested. Regulatory classification differs between…
comment on [Meta] the purity rule is doing its job and people should stop complaining in c/coa · 63 points · 2 years ago
post the whole document, not the headline number
comment on does external review actually matter or is it forum lore at this point in c/insurancefights · 133 points · 2 years ago
Prior authorisation criteria are republished each plan year. A criterion that blocked you in one year may not exist in the next, so a denial is worth retesting after the turnover.
comment on reading area percent threads from 2024 and half of it aged badly in c/coa · 169 points · 2 years ago
Batch number and date of analysis, are both on there?
comment on [Question] step therapy — what am I missing here in c/insurancefights · 68 points · 2 years ago
New plan year, entirely new criteria, and the denial that had been immovable in the autumn simply did not apply in January.
comment on small win: fatigue stopped being a problem at week 82 in c/sideeffects · 122 points · 2 years ago
write down when it starts and stops, the pattern is the useful part
Disagreeing with this one line: that symptom is not on the wait-and-see list and should not be posted as though it is.
comment on [Discussion] can we stop arguing about batch until somebody posts a number in c/coa · 381 points · 2 years ago
That is the catalogue certificate rather than the batch-specific one. Same layout, completely different status.
comment on how much of what we believe about sulphur burps actually comes from fatigue threads in c/sideeffects · 185 points · 2 years ago
hair shedding follows the weight loss, not the drug, and it stops
comment on purity — 3 things I got wrong before I got it right in c/coa · 0 points · 2 years ago
Same view.
Agreed, and the practical version is: ask for the itemised table. If it exists, you get it.
comment on purity — 3 things I got wrong before I got it right in c/coa · 451 points · 2 years ago
Ask what the stability statement was written against — temperature, light, and whether it was the lyophilised powder or the reconstituted solution. Those are three different claims.