3 months in and regulatory is still the thing I get wrong
3 months in and regulatory is still the thing I get wrong. Full detail below, and I have tried to keep the editorialising out of it. Numbers, in the order they matter: 3 months. Every claim I could trace in this board went back to about four papers. That was a sobering afternoon. Kept a reconstituted vial too long…
That claim traces back to a single preclinical paper that says something considerably narrower.
That claim traces back to a single preclinical paper that says something considerably narrower.
Disagreeing with this line: that paper is in a rodent model and it is being quoted as a human result.
Disagreeing with this line: that paper is in a rodent model and it is being quoted as a human result.
Adding the standing caveat — research material is not approved for human use, wherever you are.
the tendon claims are the most repeated and the least evidenced
It is a fifteen-residue peptide with a published sequence, which makes synthesis straightforward and makes identity verification the meaningful test rather than an optional extra.