Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine. Half the figures circulating in this community trace back to a secondary summary that dropped a qualifier.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
Following on from anders_CPH — and this may be the naive question:
How would you tell the difference between that and the alternative explanation?
SleepDoc_PDX said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
Pushing back on SleepDoc_PDX here. Not convinced. The evidence being cited is consistent with the conclusion and also consistent with two other conclusions nobody has ruled out.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsSleepDoc_PDX said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
Correct, and worth adding that it is reversible. Nothing being described here is a one-way door, which changes how cautious it is reasonable to be.
SleepDoc_PDX said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
This is exactly what I could not find anywhere else. Taking it to my next appointment.