hyun_seoul said:Most of what circulates confidently in this community traces back to one summary of one study, and the qualifier was dropped somewhere in the third…
Can confirm. Same sequence, different timescale. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.
The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. 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.
One thing that is still open after dave_SLC’s answer:
How would you tell the difference between that and the alternative explanation?
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View Resultswendy_avl 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.
Moderator note: the sourcing question belongs in the vendor section and has been split out. Report rather than reply if it drifts again.