Coming back to something from earlier in the thread, because it keeps being talked past:
The objection nobody has made: this only works if the measurement is doing what we assume it is doing, and that assumption has not been tested here.
Dr.RenalNash said:The objection nobody has made: this only works if the measurement is doing what we assume it is doing, and that assumption has not been tested here.
Can confirm. Same sequence, different timescale.
OP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.
Reporting back for the archive rather than for the thread: I did the narrow version of what was suggested, gave it the full interval, and it settled. Posting it because threads without a follow-up are half a thread.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsThis was answered several pages up and is worth repeating rather than re-litigating:
Most of what circulates confidently in this community traces back to one summary of one study, and the qualifier was dropped somewhere in the third retelling.
Following on from Dr.RenalNash — and this may be the naive question:
Was that from a primary source or from a summary of one?