Worth restating a point from upthread for anyone joining at this page:
Reporting back for the archive rather than for the thread: I did the narrow version of what was suggested, gave it the full interval, and it settled. Posting it because threads without a follow-up are half a thread.
Dr.EM_Chicago said:Reporting back for the archive rather than for the thread: I did the narrow version of what was suggested, gave it the full interval, and it settled.
Adding a me-too, because a thread of one person's experience is not much use.
Dr.EM_Chicago said:Reporting back for the archive rather than for the thread: I did the narrow version of what was suggested, gave it the full interval, and it settled.
Worth restating a point from upthread for anyone joining at this page:
Went back through my own correspondence with an earlier supplier and the warning signs were all there in the replies, weeks before the quality changed. I was reading the product and not the behaviour.
Trusted third-party HPLC & mass spectrometry analysis. Verify peptide purity with the lab the community relies on. Independent. Accurate. Transparent.
Verify Your PeptidesEst. 1998. The synthesis house behind the vials you send for testing. ISO 9001 and cGMP certified, 1,500+ staff, batch-specific COA with every order.
Browse GL BiochemReprising the part of this that the last few posts have moved away from:
For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine. Half the figures circulating in this community trace back to a secondary summary that dropped a qualifier.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
Did your prescriber agree with that reading, and if not what was their objection?