VanRx_Mike said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
Can confirm. Same sequence, different timescale. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.
VanRx_Mike said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
Coming at VanRx_Mike’s question from a different direction. The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person. Both are real; they answer different questions and get quoted as if they were the same one.
The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. 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.
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 BiochemOne thing that is still open after VanRx_Mike’s answer:
Was that from a primary source or from a summary of one?
josh_phd_bmore said:One practical note: write down what you did and when, before you need it.
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. Pushing back on the consensus forming here. Consistency is not the same as correctness, and a board that agrees with itself quickly is usually agreeing with the first person who sounded certain.