[Results] 94 weeks on 1.0mg, full numbers, ask me anything boring
94 weeks on 1.0mg, full numbers, ask me anything boring, and the part I actually want to talk about is at the bottom.
To save the first four comments: 94 weeks and 1.0mg.
Assumed regulatory status was static and it was not. Checked again this year and the answer had changed where I live.
Asked GGPeps for the theoretical mass alongside the certificate and they sent it without asking why.
I will update this if the picture changes rather than quietly leaving it up.
best — the order this archive was captured in
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.
What jurisdiction are you asking about? The answer has changed in several.
Reconstituted or powder, and how long has it been in solution?
short peptides are cheap, which cuts both ways
read the actual papers, they are more modest than the summaries
the human evidence is thin and the rodent evidence is not
Correction: that study was in rodents. Worth stating explicitly since the thread has been reading it as clinical.
Right, and regulatory status has genuinely moved in several jurisdictions. Answers from three years ago may be wrong now.
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 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.
The three questions, kept separate, because this board runs them together constantly.
Identity: is this the sequence I ordered? Answered by mass spectrometry against a theoretical mass. Quantity: how much peptide is in the vial? Answered by net peptide content, not by area percent. Stability: what happens to it in solution over time? Answered by a stability statement with conditions attached, and almost never asked for.
A certificate that answers one of the three is common. One that answers all three is rare and worth choosing a supplier over. Nothing here is approved for human use in any case, so all three are questions about material rather than about anything else.
Push back: "no reported harms" in a literature with almost no human trials is not a safety finding.
identity, quantity, stability — three separate questions
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.
Standing reminder in every thread here: research material is not approved for human use.
Cosigning that the papers are more modest than the summaries of them. That is true across this whole site and especially here.
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.
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.
Short peptides in solution are subject to hydrolysis and, depending on sequence, oxidation.
Agreed — and the preclinical to clinical gap is where nearly all the overclaiming happens.
stability in solution is the practical question nobody asks
- 1What jurisdiction are you asking about? The answer has changed in several.6 comments in this branch · started by u/cormac_roos