PharmD_Rodriguez said:That holds where the measurement is reliable.
Can confirm. Same sequence, different timescale. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.
PharmD_Rodriguez said:That holds where the measurement is reliable.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. 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.
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 BiochemOne thing that is still open after PharmD_Rodriguez’s answer:
What a vetting checklist should actually contain, as opposed to a list of things that are easy to fake?
dave_SLC said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
Pushing back on dave_SLC here. I think the framing smuggles in the conclusion. Ask it the other way round and the obvious answer reverses, which usually means the question is doing the work.