Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. It helps to say which part of this you are uncertain about. A precise question gets a precise answer; a general one gets everybody’s favourite anecdote.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.
VendorMark said:It helps to say which part of this you are uncertain about.
Same experience, arrived at from the opposite direction. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.
VendorMark said:It helps to say which part of this you are uncertain about.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. 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 retelling.
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 BiochemOne concrete data point for the thread. 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 VendorMark’s answer:
How would you tell the difference between that and the alternative explanation?