[Sceptic] the tendon claims outran the evidence by about a decade
the tendon claims outran the evidence by about a decade. It is the sort of thing everyone half-believes and nobody writes down.
Every claim I could trace in this board went back to about four papers. That was a sobering afternoon.
Bought small, tested identity first, and only then thought about anything else. That order felt right.
Why identity, not purity, is the test to buy here.
This is a short peptide with a published sequence. Synthesis is not difficult, which means the market is wide and the analytical question shifts. A high area-percent figure tells you the sample is homogeneous; it does not tell you the homogeneous material is the sequence you ordered.
Mass spectrometry, with the theoretical mass alongside the measured one, converts a purity claim into an identity claim. It costs a little more and it answers the question that actually matters. Ask for it, and ask suppliers whether they can provide it before you order — the answers are informative in themselves.
If two or three other people have done the same thing we might actually learn something. Alone it is an anecdote.
best — the order this archive was captured in
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.
Do you have the mass spectrum?
Small fix — fifteen residues, not seventeen. The sequence is public and easy to check.
That claim traces back to a single preclinical paper that says something considerably narrower.
the tendon claims are the most repeated and the least evidenced
Correcting myself: I said the regulatory position had not changed and in that jurisdiction it has.
Yes. Nothing here is approved for human use and that should be the first line of every thread, not the last.
Went and read the primary rodent papers after arguing about a summary for a week. They are much narrower than the threads suggest.
Which paper is that claim from, and was it in humans?
Same. Solution stability is the practical question and almost nobody asks it.
no clinical trial has established what these threads assert
the human evidence is thin and the rodent evidence is not
research-use-only means not approved for human use, and here that covers everything
Sent a vial to PeptideMeter: 99.2% against a claimed 99.0%, with the mass confirming the sequence. Both halves mattered to me.
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.
a fifteen-residue peptide is easy to make and easy to make badly
- 1Do you have the mass spectrum?6 comments in this branch · started by u/ilias_kaufmann
- 2Which paper is that claim from, and was it in humans?6 comments in this branch · started by u/elin_varga