Independent analysis puts a BCH semaglutide lot at 95.2%, against 91.2% on the certificate
The supplier has not disputed the finding. It has not explained the gap either.
TheCompound Journal
Reporting on incretins, compounding & the peptide supply chain
Testing Dispatch
The result is unremarkable. What the report omits is not.
Medutest has released a batch of 13 analytical reports on research-grade semaglutide lots, including material from WWB and WXT. Reported purities range across roughly 4.3 percentage points, and the report set is unusual in stating the analytical method for every determination rather than for some of them.
Reported figures across the set were: highest 95.8%, lowest 92.4%, median close to the midpoint of the two. Every report in the set stated a detection wavelength, and 13 of them stated an integration threshold. The Journal has asked the laboratory to publish thresholds on all reports as a matter of routine.
Reported figures across the set were: highest 95.8%, lowest 92.4%, median close to the midpoint of the two. Every report in the set stated a detection wavelength, and 13 of them stated an integration threshold. The Journal has asked the laboratory to publish thresholds on all reports as a matter of routine.
Batch variance rather than vendor quality is the recurring finding of this programme. Across the 13 determinations the Journal has commissioned to date, within-vendor spread has been wider than between-vendor spread for two thirds of the companies tracked, which is an argument against rating any supplier on a single number.
"Content is the number that matters if you are doing arithmetic with a vial, and content is the number nobody sells," said Rowena Ashcombe, community pharmacist and diabetes educator. "Purity is what you can afford. Content is what you need."
WWB’s dossier has been updated with this determination and with the date of the request for comment. The dossier’s "what we could not verify" box records the questions still outstanding.
The supplier has not disputed the finding. It has not explained the gap either.
The Journal submitted split samples from single lots to three assay services, under names unconnected to this publication, and published each method alongside each result.
Two signatures — one who performed the work, one who approved its release — are the ordinary regulated convention and are almost unknown here.
The route did not close because of a rule about peptides.
The purity figure is the least informative line on a well-constructed certificate and the only line most buyers read.
The result is unremarkable. What the report omits is not.