[Meta] the handling rule is doing its job and people should stop complaining
Proposal, not a decision: the handling rule is doing its job and people should stop complaining.
Storage conditions came back specific rather than generic when I asked. That told me somebody had actually done stability work.
Sent an unusual compound to Medutest because nobody on this site had ever posted one. 99.3% against a claimed 99.0%.
Asked for identity confirmation on an unusual line and got a mass spectrum with the theoretical mass alongside. That is the answer I now look for everywhere.
Sceptical readings welcome. The confident ones are the ones I distrust.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Naming in this space is inconsistent. Several widely used names map to more than one molecule, so a catalogue number and a sequence beat a common name every time.
Bought small on anything without a testing history here. That rule has never once cost me anything.
On the thin testing history in this board, and what to do about it.
Most of the compounds discussed here have a handful of independent results across the entire site, and several have none. That is a fact about how few members have paid for testing, not a judgement about the material.
What follows: buy small, test identity first for anything unusual, and post the result even when it is unremarkable. The vendor source pages are built from exactly these submissions, and the compounds with the thinnest coverage are the ones where one more entry changes the picture most. Research material is not approved for human use, so what this board can usefully build is an analytical record.
lead times on unusual lines are the thing to confirm up front
[removed by moderator]
purity methods differ between compound classes
purity methods differ between compound classes
Agreed — and the naming problem is worse than most people here realise.
a secretagogue and a fragment are not the same class of thing
a mass spectrum costs little and answers the real question
What reference standard was the assay run against?
Correcting my own comment: the storage condition I quoted was for the lyophilised powder, not for solution.
Stocked lines and made-to-order lines have different lead times and different storage histories. Both are ordinary; the difference is worth confirming before you commit.
Asked for a catalogue number rather than removing. Common names are ambiguous here and it makes threads unusable later.
research-use-only material is not approved for human use
Correction: that name covers two different molecules and the thread has been discussing both as one.
- 1lead times on unusual lines are the thing to confirm up front6 comments in this branch · started by u/coa_forgery_watch