[Discussion] the API source advice in here is 3 years out of date
the API source advice in here is 3 years out of date, and I am aware this is a minority view on this board.
The relevant figures are 3 years, and they come from the same log I have kept the whole time.
Salt form matters for mass: a preparation specified as one salt and dosed as the free base gives you a different amount of peptide for the same number on the label.
Potency and sterility testing on the finished preparation are separate from any certificate covering the starting material. Ask which you are being shown.
That is everything I have. The rest is opinion and I have tried to keep it out.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Compounded preparations are not approved products and carry no bioequivalence claim. That is a statement about regulatory category, not about quality.
Compounded preparations are not approved products and carry no bioequivalence claim.
discount_math_dm is right about the concentration trap. It breaks arithmetic that has been reliable for months.
the pharmacy and the prescriber are two separate questions
Agreed on potency testing of the finished preparation. That is a different question from the purity of the starting material.
Nothing in this thread is medical advice, and the choice between arrangements is one for you and a prescriber who knows your history.
a telehealth intake that asks nothing has told you what it is
Who is the prescriber, and are they the same organisation as the pharmacy?
Who is the prescriber, and are they the same organisation as the pharmacy?
Disagreeing with this bit: registration is not equivalence, and the two get run together constantly.