Dr.NateNeph said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
Careful with the causal language. Two things moving together in a period when five things changed is not a mechanism, and stating it as one makes the thread less useful to somebody reading it later.
Dr.NateNeph said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
That is right for the common case. Whether it is right for the case being asked about depends on a detail that has not been given.
Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsFrom the other side of the consultation, briefly. 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.
Dr.PulmRoch said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
Mine went the same way, slower. Posting only so the count is not one.