tried sequence for 4 weeks. here is what happened.
tried sequence for 4 weeks. here is what happened. It is the sort of thing everyone half-believes and nobody writes down. 4 weeks — those are the numbers, and they are the ones I am willing to defend. Bought small, tested identity first, and only then thought about anything else. That order felt right. Why identity,…
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.
That claim traces back to a single preclinical paper that says something considerably narrower.
Yes — the rodent literature is real and it is rodent literature. The gap to a human claim is enormous and it gets crossed in one sentence here.
Correction: that study was in rodents. Worth stating explicitly since the thread has been reading it as clinical.
[removed by moderator]
Asked GGPeps for the theoretical mass alongside the certificate and they sent it without asking why.