steve_okc said:Agreed, and the size of the effect matters as much as its existence.
Adding a me-too, because a thread of one person's experience is not much use.
steve_okc said:Agreed, and the size of the effect matters as much as its existence.
Adding a me-too, because a thread of one person's experience is not much use.
steve_okc said:Agreed, and the size of the effect matters as much as its existence.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated. Those two sets overlap less than the confident tone of most write-ups suggests, and the second set is where nearly all the disagreement on this board comes from.
One concrete data point for the thread. One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number. A figure without its method cannot be checked, and an unchecked figure is how this community accumulates folklore.
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 BiochemFollowing on from steve_okc — and this may be the naive question:
How long did you give it before you decided it was working?
Dr.PeteFamMed said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
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.