Dr.RheumBOS said:No disagreement, though it depends on where somebody is starting from, and this thread has been assuming a starting point nobody stated.
Adding a me-too, because a thread of one person's experience is not much use. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.
Dr.RheumBOS said:No disagreement, though it depends on where somebody is starting from, and this thread has been assuming a starting point nobody stated.
Coming at Dr.RheumBOS’s question from a different direction. The gap between trial results and real-world results is consistent and it is not fraud. Trial participants get titration by protocol, scheduled contact, free drug and dietetic support; removing that infrastructure costs a few percentage points every time it has been measured. When your own curve sits below the published mean, that is the likeliest explanation before anything about you or your material.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
One concrete data point for the thread. Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath. An edited-away mistake is invisible to the next person who makes 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 BiochemFollowing on from Dr.RheumBOS — and this may be the naive question:
How to read a result like this without either dismissing it or over-reading it, since the summaries all read like press releases?
Dr.NateNeph said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
Worth saying that the confident version of this is more useful to the person writing it than to the person reading it.