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?
VendorMark said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. I would resist the confidence. Half of what this board was certain about two years ago has since been quietly dropped, and nobody went back to correct the threads.
VendorMark said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
Correct as far as it goes. The part it does not cover is what to do when the honest answer is "not enough data", which is more often than anyone likes.
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 BiochemVendorMark said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
Bookmarking. The distinction being drawn above is the one nobody else makes.
Reprising the part of this that the last few posts have moved away from:
Pushing back on the consensus forming here. Consistency is not the same as correctness, and a board that agrees with itself quickly is usually agreeing with the first person who sounded certain.