jim_asheville said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not. That is answerable; arguing about which sounds more plausible is not.
One concrete data point for the thread. If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way. Most of the apparent contradictions in these threads dissolve at that step.
Worth separating that from cost and coverage, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.
Following on from jim_asheville — and this may be the naive question:
What actually works on a prior-authorisation denial, as opposed to the list of things that sound like they should work?
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 BiochemLabKate said:If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way.
Worth saying that the confident version of this is more useful to the person writing it than to the person reading it.
Reporting back.
Update: approved on the third attempt after a peer-to-peer. Nothing about my case changed; only who was doing the talking.