One thing that is still open after roxy_nash’s answer:
What would you measure differently if you were starting again?
OP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.
Coming back a few months on. It held. Nothing dramatic to report, which is the report.
PeptideChemSF said:One practical note: write down what you did and when, before you need it.
True, and it depends on a baseline nobody has stated. Without knowing where someone started, the same number can be an excellent result or a disappointing one.
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 BiochemOld thread, but it comes up first when you search for this, so it is worth updating. For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine. Half the figures circulating in this community trace back to a secondary summary that dropped a qualifier.
Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions. Agreeing that something happens says nothing about whether it happens enough to act on.