PharmD_Rodriguez said:Agreed, and the size of the effect matters as much as its existence.
Same pattern here, and in the same order.
PharmD_Rodriguez said:Agreed, and the size of the effect matters as much as its existence.
Same pattern here, and in the same order.
PharmD_Rodriguez said:Agreed, and the size of the effect matters as much as its existence.
Coming at PharmD_Rodriguez’s question from a different direction. Take it one variable at a time. Almost every unanswerable question in these threads is unanswerable because three things changed in the same fortnight, and no amount of subsequent argument can untangle them after the fact.
One concrete data point for the thread. 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.
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 BiochemA narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
Was that from a primary source or from a summary of one?
dan_philly said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
I read this differently from dan_philly, on substance rather than tone. The objection nobody has made: this only works if the measurement is doing what we assume it is doing, and that assumption has not been tested here.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.