This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
Preservative effectiveness is tested against a defined microbial challenge under defined conditions. It is not a licence to treat an entered vial as sterile indefinitely, and no supplier claims otherwise.
Caveat: everything above assumes the paperwork is what it says it is.
An update on my earlier decimal-point error post: the pattern held for another six weeks and then stopped, which I did not predict and cannot explain.
The arithmetic in post #91 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
Trying to state the decimal-point error position in a way that someone who disagrees would recognise as fair, because I do not think the version in this thread passes that test.
Decimal-point error is worth one more sentence than it usually gets, and the sentence is the one about how the number was arrived at.
Everything in post #96 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
Having read the whole decimal-point error thread before replying: the question in the first post has not actually been answered yet, and three of us have answered a nearby one instead.
Post #99 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
The decimal-point error: computing 5 mg / 2 mL as 0.25 mg/mL instead of 2.5 mg/mL is the most common arithmetic error in this subcategory. The habit that catches it: writing the units in every step of the calculation.
Answering the question post #99 raises rather than the one it answers.
Speaking only to decimal-point error as I have actually seen it, rather than as it is usually described: the effect is real, it is smaller than the thread suggests, and the variance between people is larger than the effect.
The useful distinction on decimal-point error is between what was measured and what was inferred from it. Both end up in the same sentence and only one of them has error bars.
Source for the decimal-point error figure, since it was asked for. It is in the discussion rather than the abstract, which is why the version circulating is stronger than the paper is.
Reading the surrounding paragraph is worth the two minutes. The authors are more careful than their summarisers.
I changed my mind about decimal-point error after someone here asked me for the source and I could not produce one. That is worth saying out loud because it is the ordinary way it happens.
Preservative effectiveness is tested against a defined microbial challenge under defined conditions. It is not a licence to treat an entered vial as sterile indefinitely, and no supplier claims otherwise.
Building on post #107 rather than restating it.
Do not shake. Swirl, or leave it. Vigorous agitation introduces air and shear, and neither helps a peptide go into solution any faster than patience does.
That is what the documentation says. What happens in practice is usually close.
On decimal-point error, the part that usually goes wrong is that the question is asked as though it has one answer. It has a range, and the width of the range is the interesting bit.
If you can post the two or three numbers you are working from, several people here will check the arithmetic rather than argue about the conclusion.
Post #107 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
Preservative effectiveness is tested against a defined microbial challenge under defined conditions. It is not a licence to treat an entered vial as sterile indefinitely, and no supplier claims otherwise.
Post #110 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
What I want from this decimal-point error thread is the list of things that would need to be true for the claim to hold. If we can write that list, we can check it.
I read post #108 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
The thing about decimal-point error that took me longest to accept is that a plausible mechanism is not evidence of an effect. It is a reason to look, not a result.
Do not shake. Swirl, or leave it. Vigorous agitation introduces air and shear, and neither helps a peptide go into solution any faster than patience does.
Worth saying I have only my own numbers here, and n is small.
Write the reconstitution date and the concentration on the vial. Not on a note, on the vial. Every account here of a dosing error involving the wrong concentration involves a vial with nothing written on it.
Everything in post #112 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
Two questions I would want answered before drawing anything from the decimal-point error data above: how were the cases selected, and what happened to the ones that dropped out.
Taking post #114 at face value and following it one step further.
Preservative effectiveness is tested against a defined microbial challenge under defined conditions. It is not a licence to treat an entered vial as sterile indefinitely, and no supplier claims otherwise.
The right answer here may simply be that it has not been measured.
Thank you for taking the time. That was more work than a reply usually is.