Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. Most of what circulates confidently in this community traces back to one summary of one study, and the qualifier was dropped somewhere in the third retelling.
Dr.NateNeph said:Most of what circulates confidently in this community traces back to one summary of one study, and the qualifier was dropped somewhere in the third…
Mine went the same way, slower.
Closing the loop on my own question.
For the archive: it took about six weeks rather than the two I expected, and the difference between those two numbers was the whole of my problem.
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 BiochemFound this through search years later and it is still the best discussion of the question, so adding one thing. If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way. Most of the apparent contradictions in these threads dissolve at that step.
Following on from Dr.NateNeph — and this may be the naive question:
Was that from a primary source or from a summary of one?