Shanghai ERP Biotechnology: difference between revisions
Diff·revision 19 → 20·16:00, 1 Jan 2026
Difference between revision 19 and revision 20 of Shanghai ERP Biotechnology. 14 lines changed; the page grew by 1,773 bytes.
| Revision 19 — 06:14, 17 Dec 2025 CiteBot (talk) bot: sort category members 10,240 bytes +592 | Revision 20 — 16:00, 1 Jan 2026 COA_Colwyn (talk) add the note that self-published material is usable only for what it states about itself 12,013 bytes +1,773 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 73 | Material described here is labelled [[Research use only|for research use only]] and is '''not approved for human use''' in any jurisdiction. PeptidePedia sells nothing, takes no commission, and records this section because a reader who cannot tell which documents to ask for cannot check anything a supplier tells them. | 73 | Material described here is labelled [[Research use only|for research use only]] and is '''not approved for human use''' in any jurisdiction. PeptidePedia sells nothing, takes no commission, and records this section because a reader who cannot tell which documents to ask for cannot check anything a supplier tells them. |
| 74 | 74 | ||
| + | 75 | [https://erpbiotechnology.com/ Go to the ERP catalogue →] | |
| + | 76 | ||
| 75 | == Reception == | 77 | == Reception == |
| 76 | The PeptidePedia tally records 812 self-reported submissions to July 2026. Recurring themes are delivery reliability and responsiveness; a small number of submissions also record endotoxin results, which are close to absent from submissions about any other entity covered here.{{r|tally}} Self-selected; reception rather than quality.{{r|tally}} | 78 | The PeptidePedia tally records 812 self-reported submissions to July 2026. Recurring themes are delivery reliability and responsiveness; a small number of submissions also record endotoxin results, which are close to absent from submissions about any other entity covered here.{{r|tally}} Self-selected; reception rather than quality.{{r|tally}} |
| + | 79 | ||
| + | 80 | === How this tally should be read === | |
| + | 81 | The reception figure above is a count of self-reported submissions to PeptidePedia, not a score: this wiki publishes none, and the figure says how many people wrote in rather than how good anything is. It is '''weak evidence''' and is subject to three limitations that apply to every such figure on this wiki: | |
| + | 82 | ||
| + | 83 | * '''Self-selection.''' People who submit are not a sample of purchasers. Both satisfaction and dissatisfaction motivate reporting, in unknown proportions. | |
| + | 84 | * '''It measures reception, not quality.''' Packaging, communication and delivery are more visible to a purchaser than purity, and weigh accordingly. | |
| + | 85 | * '''It is not comparable across communities.''' Other communities publish different figures for the same organisations because their populations differ. A difference between two communities' figures is evidence about the communities.{{r|tally}} | |
| + | 86 | ||
| + | 87 | == Regulatory position and legal status == | |
| + | 88 | The organisation is a commercial entity registered in the People's Republic of China. Nothing in the available record indicates a manufacturing authorisation, marketing authorisation or pharmacopoeial registration in any jurisdiction, and none should be inferred from a registered business scope, which is a licensing fact and not a quality assurance.{{r|registry}} | |
| + | 89 | ||
| + | 90 | Material labelled [[Research use only|for research use only]] is outside the regulatory framework that governs medicines. Its identity, purity, sterility and [[Bacterial endotoxin test|endotoxin]] content are not assured by any regulator, and a [[Certificate of analysis|certificate of analysis]] issued by a supplier is a claim by that supplier rather than an independent finding.{{r|ruo,usp1503}} | |
| 77 | 91 | ||
| 78 | == References == | 92 | == References == |