One thing that is still open after CarlaRPh_TPA’s answer:
Was that from a primary source or from a summary of one?
One thing that is still open after CarlaRPh_TPA’s answer:
Was that from a primary source or from a summary of one?
CanadaChris said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. I would resist the confidence. Half of what this board was certain about two years ago has since been quietly dropped, and nobody went back to correct the threads.
CanadaChris said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
That is right, and it stops being right at the edges. The general case is well behaved; the interesting cases in this thread are all at the boundary where the general case breaks.
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 BiochemCanadaChris said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
This is exactly what I could not find anywhere else.
Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the correction. That is slower than asserting, and it is the only version that survives being wrong.