PeptideSynthNJ said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. Filing an objection on the n=1 problem. Personal experience is genuine evidence about one person and very weak evidence about anybody else, and this thread keeps promoting the first into the second.
PeptideSynthNJ said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
Agreed, and the size of the effect matters as much as its existence. Something real and small gets treated here as though it were real and decisive.
PeptideSynthNJ said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
Bookmarking. The distinction being drawn above is the one nobody else makes. Taking it to my next appointment.
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 BiochemClinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. 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.
OP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.
Update — I was wrong in the opening post, specifically about the direction. Correcting it here rather than editing it away.