Blind duplicates: what happens when a laboratory does not know it is being watched
Two years ago we ran an anonymised version of this comparison and promised a named one. This is it, with every method printed in full.
TheCompound Journal
Reporting on incretins, compounding & the peptide supply chain
Everything filed in March 2024, the month of Volume 1, Number 3. The issue itself — cover, editor’s letter and table of contents — is here.
Two years ago we ran an anonymised version of this comparison and promised a named one. This is it, with every method printed in full.
Efficacy was never the question in this appraisal. Duration of treatment was.
Reported from the sessions, and from the two hours afterwards.
The document is four pages. Three of them are about dates.
We set out what is known, what is inferred and what is simply assumed about the fortnight after a vial is opened.
Reduced intake is a plausible mechanism for deficiency. Reduced absorption is not, and the two are conflated in most of the advice.
Efficacy was never the question in this appraisal. Duration of treatment was.
A proper account of an operation that existed, and of what closing it cost.
The evidence base is thin and the document says so, which is to its credit.
Documentation practice is the only part of vendor quality a buyer can assess before purchase.
The condition on arrival is recorded by some services and not others, and it is one of the more informative lines in a report.
Micronutrient guidance for this drug class is borrowed almost entirely from post-bariatric surveillance, where the anatomy is different and the deficiency mechanisms are not…
The route did not close because of a rule about peptides.
Reported from the sessions, and from the two hours afterwards.
The route did not close because of a rule about peptides.
A design note rather than a result: what the comparator was, and what that permits you to conclude.
The convention — resume lower, re-escalate — is not caution. It follows directly from the elimination half-life.
Two years ago we ran an anonymised version of this comparison and promised a named one. This is it, with every method printed in full.
Documentation practice is the only part of vendor quality a buyer can assess before purchase.
Efficacy was never the question in this appraisal. Duration of treatment was.
Reported from the sessions, and from the two hours afterwards.
The convention — resume lower, re-escalate — is not caution. It follows directly from the elimination half-life.
Skin thickness at the standard injection sites is approximately two millimetres in adults and varies remarkably little with body mass. That single finding is why short…
The most useful single addition to any purity determination is a second separation under a different pH or on a different stationary phase, and the second-most useful is a…
Follow the resin, not the catalogue.
Efficacy was never the question in this appraisal. Duration of treatment was.
A proper account of an operation that existed, and of what closing it cost.
The document is four pages. Three of them are about dates.
A survey of the maintenance evidence, which is shorter than the survey of the withdrawal evidence.
Reported from the analysis, not from a warning notice.
A design note rather than a result: what the comparator was, and what that permits you to conclude.
The observation that closes a facility is rarely the dramatic one.
The evidence base is thin and the document says so, which is to its credit.
A brief and unromantic tour of the interface between a liquid sample and a vacuum.
The features that should prompt urgent assessment, stated once and plainly.
A design note rather than a result: what the comparator was, and what that permits you to conclude.
The document is four pages. Three of them are about dates.
Reported from the sessions, and from the two hours afterwards.
Non-chromophoric components — counter-ions, salts, some excipients — contribute mass to the vial and nothing at all to the chromatogram.
Asymptomatic pancreatic enzyme elevation is common on treatment and is not pancreatitis. The distinction is clinical, not biochemical.