claudia_zurich said:The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions.
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.
claudia_zurich said:The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated. Those two sets overlap less than the confident tone of most write-ups suggests, and the second set is where nearly all the disagreement on this board comes from.
Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself. Four weeks is the usual minimum for anything pharmacological on this board, and two weeks of data has told you almost nothing.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsFollowing on from claudia_zurich — and this may be the naive question:
What would you measure differently if you were starting again?
Reporting back.
Follow-up — getting the denial reason in writing was the step that mattered. It named the criterion, and the criterion was a document I already had.