PeptideSynthNJ said:Agreed, and one caution: a single measurement is not a measurement.
Can confirm. Same sequence, different timescale. Nothing to add that would improve it.
PeptideSynthNJ said:Agreed, and one caution: a single measurement is not a measurement.
Can confirm. Same sequence, different timescale. Nothing to add that would improve it.
PeptideSynthNJ said:Agreed, and one caution: a single measurement is not a measurement.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. Take it one variable at a time. Almost every unanswerable question in these threads is unanswerable because three things changed in the same fortnight, and no amount of subsequent argument can untangle them after the fact.
The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a trend.
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:
Was that from a primary source or from a summary of one?
DoseLogDan said:Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a…
I read this differently from DoseLogDan, on substance rather than tone. 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.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.