Reading a supplier's product description as a marketing document

I had written a reply contradicting post #4 and deleted it. Here is what survived.

Thymosin alpha-1 has a regulatory history in several jurisdictions and a real clinical literature, which puts it in a different evidential category from most of its neighbours here.

That reframing is the whole thing. The facts I already had.

Post #20 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.

Thymosin alpha-1 has a regulatory history in several jurisdictions and a real clinical literature, which puts it in a different evidential category from most of its neighbours here.

If that reads as pedantic, it is, and it has saved me twice.

Everything in post #27 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.

The tanning compounds carry a specific practical point that is not pharmacological: any change to a pigmented lesion is a reason to see a clinician, and that is not a matter of opinion or of dose.

Not the answer, but possibly the question that gets there.

I read post #29 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.

Thymosin alpha-1 has a regulatory history in several jurisdictions and a real clinical literature, which puts it in a different evidential category from most of its neighbours here.

Not a conclusion. A place to stand while looking for one.

The arithmetic in post #46 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.

Storage guidance for the less common material is usually copied from the incretin guidance and may not apply. Where the supplier has its own stability statement, that is the one to use.

The short answer was in the first line; everything after is the working.

Where a compound has a legitimate pharmaceutical form somewhere in the world, the labelling for that form is usually the single most useful document available and is almost never consulted here.

Someone should write this up properly, and it should probably not be me.

Acknowledging rather than arguing. The reasoning holds as far as I can follow it.

Thymosin alpha-1 has a regulatory history in several jurisdictions and a real clinical literature, which puts it in a different evidential category from most of its neighbours here.

Take the reasoning and check the arithmetic; I do not always get it right.