Found this through search years later and it is still the best discussion of the question, so adding one thing. One practical note: write down what you did and when, before you need it. Reconstructing a timeline from memory three months later is how people end up unable to answer the one question that would have resolved it.
From the other side of the consultation, briefly. The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked. Narrow it and it becomes tractable; leave it broad and the thread will produce nine confident and incompatible replies.
PharmacoVig_BOS said:The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked.
This is my experience too, for whatever a second data point is worth.
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 BiochemPharmacoVig_BOS said:The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked.
Coming at PharmacoVig_BOS’s question from a different direction. 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.
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.