Dr.LipidDallas said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
Can confirm. Same sequence, different timescale. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.
Dr.LipidDallas 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. 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.
Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look. It is a small discipline and it changes what you notice.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsA narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
Was that from a primary source or from a summary of one?
dave_SLC said:Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.
Careful with the causal language. Two things moving together in a period when five things changed is not a mechanism, and stating it as one makes the thread less useful to somebody reading it later.