GLPHubglpresearchhub.com
Read-only archive. GLP Research Hub is a static community record — nothing here is for sale, no account is needed, and no vote you cast is counted. Why?
CA

u/canada_coverage

ON. Private plan vs public formulary, and the special-authorisation dance.

member · joined 14 Aug 2024

6,754post karma
6,982comment karma
7submissions
95comments

Comments — page 3 of 3

comment on [Question] Denmark — has anyone got a straight answer on province in c/glp1canada · 366 points · 2 years ago

A rejected claim at the pharmacy counter and a denied authorization are different events with different remedies. The first can be an administrative or quantity issue; the second is a determination you can appeal.

permalink

comment on [Question] Denmark — has anyone got a straight answer on province in c/glp1canada · 100 points · 2 years ago

Plan and policy numbers redacted from the screenshot above.

permalink

comment on [Question] small molecule — what am I missing here in c/orforglipron · 20 points · 2 years ago

Correction: that is the oral peptide product, which is a different thing entirely. This one is a small molecule.

permalink

comment on integration is the most under-discussed thing on this board in c/hplc · 380 points · 2 years ago

Reading a trace posted here, in the order I actually look at things.

Axes first — if the wavelength and the time axis are not labelled, I stop. Then the baseline: where has it been drawn, and does the drawing absorb anything. Then peak shape: fronting, tailing, a shoulder that never resolves. Then the blank, if one was run, for carryover.

Only after all of that do I look at the percentage, and by then I usually know how much weight it deserves. The number is the last thing on the page and the first thing everybody argues about, which is exactly backwards.

permalink

comment on [Question] how do you actually verify thymosin in c/researchpeptides · 94 points · 2 years ago

Not convinced. A purity figure without a stated method is not comparable to one that has a method attached.

permalink

comment on [Lab] ERP cagri — PeptideMeter came back 98.8% against a claimed 98.0% in c/hplc · 555 points · 2 years ago

Reading a trace posted here, in the order I actually look at things.

Axes first — if the wavelength and the time axis are not labelled, I stop. Then the baseline: where has it been drawn, and does the drawing absorb anything. Then peak shape: fronting, tailing, a shoulder that never resolves. Then the blank, if one was run, for carryover.

Only after all of that do I look at the percentage, and by then I usually know how much weight it deserves. The number is the last thing on the page and the first thing everybody argues about, which is exactly backwards.

permalink

comment on reading tendon threads from 2024 and half of it aged badly in c/bpc157 · 197 points · 2 years ago

Not convinced. A high purity figure with no identity confirmation tells you the sample is homogeneous, not that it is what you ordered.

permalink

comment on [Lab] split one vial across PeptideMeter and VendorInvestigate — 93.7% and 94.2% in c/hplc · 722 points · 2 years ago

Yes — system suitability first. Without it the number is an assertion about the instrument, not the sample.

permalink

comment on [Question] step therapy — what am I missing here in c/insurancefights · 24 points · 2 years ago

external review exists and almost nobody uses it

permalink

comment on [Lab] 18th independent test on SWB — 99.4% on a claimed 99.0%, and the trend is the interesting part in c/hplc · 64 points · 2 years ago

Cosigning the wavelength point.

Disagreeing with this bit: that spread is ordinary inter-lab variance, not a disagreement about the material.

permalink

comment on [Lab] 18th independent test on SWB — 99.4% on a claimed 99.0%, and the trend is the interesting part in c/hplc · -35 points · 2 years ago

Not convinced by that integration. Dropping the baseline there absorbs part of the shoulder into the main peak.

permalink

comment on does formulary actually matter or is it forum lore at this point in c/insurancefights · 24 points · 2 years ago

Step therapy requires documented trial of preferred alternatives. It is not an argument to be won on merits; it is a record to be produced, and the record is what the appeal must contain.

permalink

comment on [Question] how do you actually verify formulary in c/insurancefights · 19 points · 2 years ago

That advice is jurisdiction-specific and this board spans several. Say where you are.

permalink

comment on purity — 19 things I got wrong before I got it right in c/hplc · 311 points · 2 years ago

report the method or do not report the number

permalink

comment on gradient — 17 things I got wrong before I got it right in c/hplc · 6 points · 2 years ago

Started reporting my own integrations with the baseline choice stated. Arguments in my threads dropped by about half.

permalink

Trophy case
Top Contributor Answered the Question
Cake day 14 Aug 2024
Sponsored

Sigma-Aldrich Standards

Certified reference materials for peptide identity and purity work.

sigmaaldrich.com
Where they post
Before you read on

Several compounds discussed on GLP Research Hub are sold for research use only and are not approved for human use anywhere. Nothing here is medical advice and none of it is written by your clinician. If a post reads like an instruction, treat it as a description of what one stranger did.