From the other side of the consultation, briefly. It helps to say which part of this you are uncertain about. A precise question gets a precise answer; a general one gets everybody’s favourite anecdote.
Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.
dave_SLC said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated. Those two sets overlap less than the confident tone of most write-ups suggests, and the second set is where nearly all the disagreement on this board comes from.
The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself. Four weeks is the usual minimum for anything pharmacological on this board, and two weeks of data has told you almost nothing.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsOne thing that is still open after dave_SLC’s answer:
What did you change at the same time, and can you separate the two now?
Moderator note: a post naming a supplier has been edited. Discuss suppliers in the review sections, not here. Tagging this one for the weekly digest.