lucas_SP_BR said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
No disagreement with lucas_SP_BR. One condition attached. Yes, and the corollary is less popular: if the reasoning holds, it also holds where it produces an answer we do not like.
lucas_SP_BR said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
This is exactly what I could not find anywhere else. Sending this to two other people who asked me the same thing last week.
Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. 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.
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 BiochemDr.EndoIndy said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
Can confirm. Same sequence, different timescale.
Dr.EndoIndy said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions. Agreeing that something happens says nothing about whether it happens enough to act on.