One thing that is still open after PharmHunterJen’s answer:
Was that from a primary source or from a summary of one?
One thing that is still open after PharmHunterJen’s answer:
Was that from a primary source or from a summary of one?
Old thread, but it comes up first when you search for this, so it is worth updating. 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.
Dr.RaviCardio said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
Dr.RaviCardio has the substance of this right. The condition it depends on is worth stating. Yes, and the corollary is less popular: if the reasoning holds, it also holds where it produces an answer we do not like.
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 BiochemDr.RaviCardio said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
Thank you for spelling out the reasoning rather than just the conclusion.
From the other side of the consultation, briefly. There is a difference between no evidence and evidence of no effect, and this subject is one where the two get swapped freely in both directions.