This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
The arithmetic in post #28 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
Answering the research-use-only status question as asked, then the question I think is meant. As asked: yes, with the qualification below. As meant: it depends on how the first measurement was taken.
Answering the question post #30 raises rather than the one it answers.
Nobody has said the unglamorous part of research-use-only status yet, so: most of the variation is explained by things that are boring to write about and easy to check.
Narrowing post #32, because the general version has more than one answer.
Small correction to my own earlier position on research-use-only status. I had the units the wrong way round, which changes the conclusion by an order of magnitude and therefore changes it entirely.
Research-use-only status is a legal classification, not a safety classification. It means the compound is sold for laboratory use and not for human consumption or treatment. The label does not tell you whether the molecule is safe, efficacious, or what its effects are.
Understood, and I withdraw the assumption I opened with.
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.
Worth separating two things that post #39 runs together.
Two sentences on research-use-only status and then I will stop, because the rest is speculation and the thread is better without mine.
What is documented is narrow. What is inferred from it is broad. The gap between them is where every argument here lives.
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.
The general answer and the answer for your case may diverge here.
Post #42 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
An observation about research-use-only status that I cannot explain and am posting anyway, on the principle that unexplained observations are more useful public than private.
Taking post #44 at face value and following it one step further.
Several compounds discussed here have no published human pharmacokinetics at all. That means half-life claims in circulation were derived from an animal model or from nothing.
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.
I would put this at better than even and not much better.
The tanning compounds carry a specific practical point that is not pharmacological: any change to a pigmented lesion is a reason to see a clinician, and that is not a matter of opinion or of dose.
Posted with less confidence than the sentence structure implies.
The number people quote for research-use-only status is a central estimate presented without its interval, and the interval is wide enough that the estimate is nearly uninformative on its own.
This settles it for me, at least until somebody posts a reason it should not.
Trying to state the research-use-only status position in a way that someone who disagrees would recognise as fair, because I do not think the version in this thread passes that test.
Staff rationale: Hidden by community flags. The claim about a named supplier was not accompanied by a batch, a date, a method or a document, which R6 requires.
How to research a compound with no human data: mechanistic plausibility is one input. Preclinical data is another. The honest position is that you are reasoning from theory, not from evidence, and the track record of such reasoning is unimpressive when tested against actual outcomes.
The step people skip is the one I have spelled out.
The corresponding entry is in the public moderation log. Hidden posts are never deleted.
Picking up post #54: that is the part I would want checked first.
An update on my earlier research-use-only status post: the pattern held for another six weeks and then stopped, which I did not predict and cannot explain.
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.
Seconded. It reads as careful rather than confident, which is the right register.