Dr.RheumBOS said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
That holds where the measurement is reliable. Where it is noisy — and a lot of what gets tracked here is noisy — the same reasoning produces confident nonsense.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
DebRD_ATL said:Agreed on the target, with the caveat that reference weight and current weight are different numbers.
Thank you — that is the clearest version of this I have read, and I have read a lot of them.
Dr.RheumBOS said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
Pushing back on Dr.RheumBOS here. Not convinced. The evidence being cited is consistent with the conclusion and also consistent with two other conclusions nobody has ruled out.
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 BiochemThe figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a trend.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
Moderator note: the sourcing question belongs in the vendor section and has been split out. Report rather than reply if it drifts again.