This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
Where I part company with post #87, and it is a narrow parting.
Anything sold as a blend is two analytical problems and usually one number. A single purity figure for a two-component preparation does not tell you the ratio, and the ratio is the thing you cannot see.
Bookmarking this. I will come back when I have something worth adding.
Thymosin alpha-1 has a regulatory history in several jurisdictions and a real clinical literature, which puts it in a different evidential category from most of its neighbours here.
Take the reasoning and check the arithmetic; I do not always get it right.
On analysis: unusual or modified sequences are exactly where a default reversed-phase method is least likely to be appropriate. A supplier that runs everything on one gradient will produce a flattering result for something.
If anyone can point at the primary source I would be grateful.
Thymosin alpha-1 has a regulatory history in several jurisdictions and a real clinical literature, which puts it in a different evidential category from most of its neighbours here.
Correct me on the arithmetic if it is wrong; I would rather know.
Thymosin alpha-1 has a regulatory history in several jurisdictions and a real clinical literature, which puts it in a different evidential category from most of its neighbours here.
Written in the hope of being told what I have missed.
Narrowing post #95, because the general version has more than one answer.
When "no data" is the complete and final answer: if there is no published human data on a compound, that is the state of knowledge. Hope is not a substitute and reasoning from theory is not a substitute. That is not a reason for shame; it is the honest epistemic position.
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
AOD-9604 and the fragment hypothesis, revisited — does this still hold?
The question in the title: AOD-9604 and the fragment hypothesis, revisited — does this still hold? I will give what I have already checked below so nobody repeats it. What changes if the standard account of…
|
+7 | 11 | 31k | 19h |
|
Research-use-only status: what it means legally and practically
Research-use-only status: what it means legally and practically Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Asking about research-use-only status directly, because I…
|
+72 | 81 | 44k | 1d |
|
Coming back to: When "no data" is the complete and final answer
When "no data" is the complete and final answer I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below. Asking about the compound itself rather than about a trial of it. I…
|
+77 | 82 | 12k | 11mo |
|
Coming back to: Reading a supplier's product description as a marketing document
Reading a supplier's product description as a marketing document Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Documentation question rather than a pharmacological one,…
|
+35 | 39 | 688 | 5mo |
|
How to research a compound with no human data without deceiving yourself
Asking directly, because I could not find a straight answer: How to research a compound with no human data without deceiving yourself Question about what the published evidence for this compound actually…
|
+107 | 119 | 11k | 12mo |
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Pricing far outside the range, in either direction
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Pricing far outside the range, in either direction Everything below is what sits behind that. A question about pricing far outside the range that I think has a…
|
+3 | 7 | 27k | 7mo |
|
Batch numbers that do not match the vial label — what changed since
On the subject in the title: Batch numbers that do not match the vial label — what changed since Working notes rather than a conclusion. What changes if the standard account of Batch numbers is wrong? I ask…
|
+39 | 43 | 14k | 1mo |
|
Citing a preprint in a maintained document: our rule and its reasoning
On the subject in the title: Citing a preprint in a maintained document: our rule and its reasoning Working notes rather than a conclusion. A preprint question rather than a question about the finding in it.…
|
2 | 467 | 4mo | |
|
Batch numbers that do not match the vial label
Batch numbers that do not match the vial label — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Structured question about turnaround and what it signals. I have started recording how long…
|
+43 | 48 | 8.9k | 2d |
|
Oral versus injected administration claims for BPC-157
Oral versus injected administration claims for BPC-157 — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. I have spent a fortnight trying to pin oral versus injected administration claims…
|
+20 | 24 | 47k | 4mo |