Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false. If nothing would look different, it is not a claim about the world and no amount of discussion will settle it.
The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath. An edited-away mistake is invisible to the next person who makes it.
A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
What a vetting checklist should actually contain, as opposed to a list of things that are easy to fake?
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsBiostatsBrad said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
I do not accept the framing. The question has been narrowed to the version that has a tidy answer, and the part that was dropped is the part the OP actually asked about.
Moderator note: a post naming a supplier has been edited. Discuss suppliers in the review sections, not here. Thread quality here is what the rules are for. Keep it up.