andrew_nyc said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
That is correct as far as it goes, and here is where it stops going. Yes, and the corollary is less popular: if the reasoning holds, it also holds where it produces an answer we do not like.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
SallyK_inj said:True, and anyone with reduced kidney function needs that target set by a clinician rather than a forum.
This is exactly what I could not find anywhere else. Taking it to my next appointment.
andrew_nyc said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. The counter-case has not been addressed. Somebody upthread described the situation that does not fit, and the thread moved on rather than engaging with it, which is the failure mode this board is supposed to avoid.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
Trusted third-party HPLC & mass spectrometry analysis. Verify peptide purity with the lab the community relies on. Independent. Accurate. Transparent.
Verify Your PeptidesEst. 1998. The synthesis house behind the vials you send for testing. ISO 9001 and cGMP certified, 1,500+ staff, batch-specific COA with every order.
Browse GL BiochemOne concrete data point for the thread. One practical note: write down what you did and when, before you need it. Reconstructing a timeline from memory three months later is how people end up unable to answer the one question that would have resolved it.
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.