MikeNYC_runner said:Resolved, and the thing that resolved it was the least interesting suggestion in the thread.
Same pattern here, and in the same order. Posting only so the count is not one.
MikeNYC_runner said:Resolved, and the thing that resolved it was the least interesting suggestion in the thread.
Same pattern here, and in the same order. Posting only so the count is not one.
MikeNYC_runner said:Resolved, and the thing that resolved it was the least interesting suggestion in the thread.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either. Those three things can all be true at once, and most arguments here are two people holding different parts of that.
Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look. It is a small discipline and it changes what you notice.
Happy to go further on any of that.
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 BiochemA narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
How long did you give it before you decided it was working?
quinn_sf said:Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.
Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. 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.