Vol. 3, No. 6 — June 2026Independent since 2024

TheCompound Journal

Reporting on incretins, compounding & the peptide supply chain

A monthly journal of record.
30 issues · 32 contributors
Not medical advice. We sell nothing.

Letters

The correspondence column. Roughly a thousand readers write to the Journal each month; a fraction are printed here with the writer’s initial and city, and the desk replies where a reply is owed. Factual challenges go to the standards editor first.

0 pieces · edited by Tamsin Okonjo ·

Recently printed

All 3,703 letters →

On “In-use periods, and the ones nobody can give you”, 28 Jun 2026

Hand hygiene before anything else is the single highest-yield step in every published account of technique in any setting, and it is the step most often skipped because it is the least visible.

— T. Kaminski, Bydgoszcz

On “In-use periods, and the ones nobody can give you”, 28 Jun 2026

Sharps disposal is not an afterthought and the article treats it as one. A rigid container, obtained before it is needed rather than after, is the whole of the advice, and it belongs at the start of the sequence rather than at the end.

— T. Oyelowo, Abeokuta

The desk replied.

On “In-use periods, and the ones nobody can give you”, 28 Jun 2026

The unit confusion in this area is a design problem rather than an education problem. A syringe graduated for one purpose, used to measure a volume of something else, will produce errors at a rate determined by the markings and not by the diligence of the person reading them.

— T. Wexford, Louisville, KY

The desk replied.

On “In-use periods, and the ones nobody can give you”, 28 Jun 2026

You recommend writing the concentration on the vial. I would add: write it on the box as well. My vial label came off in the fridge and I lost the only record of what diluent volume I had used.

— M. Sandhu, Amritsar

On “The named comparison we promised two years ago”, 28 Jun 2026

A methodological plea. Publish the purchase date, the arrival date and the determination date for every blind result. Without all three, a poor figure cannot be attributed between manufacture, freight and storage, and every party will attribute it wherever suits them.

— B. Ademola, Ilorin

On “The named comparison we promised two years ago”, 28 Jun 2026

The distinction that matters is not blind against named but who chose the sample. A blind submission of a vial the seller selected is not blind in any sense that protects the reader, and the word is doing all the work in that sentence.

— G. Szabó, Debrecen

The desk replied.

On “SURMOUNT-4 was built to answer the stopping question, and it did”, 27 Jun 2026

The trials are conducted with pharmaceutical-grade material under supervision. Whatever they establish, they establish about that material in that setting, and the extension of their findings to a research-supply context is an assumption rather than a result.

— L. Oyarzún, Concepción

On “SURMOUNT-4 was built to answer the stopping question, and it did”, 27 Jun 2026

I have read four of these studies and none reported what participants were told about the possibility of regain. Expectation is a variable in any outcome that includes behaviour, and it is entirely unmeasured across the set.

— F. Aubert, Toulouse

Nothing has been filed here yet. The archive is complete from January 2024 onwards; if you expected a piece to appear on this page, write to [email protected] and the desk will look.