hans_munich said:It helps to ask what evidence would change your mind before you look at any.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false. If nothing would look different, it is not a claim about the world and no amount of discussion will settle it.
Closing the loop on my own question.
Reporting back with a partial result, because a partial result is still better than silence. Two of the three things suggested helped; I cannot separate them and I am not going to pretend otherwise.
One thing that is still open after hans_munich’s answer:
Did your prescriber agree with that reading, and if not what was their objection?
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 BiochemAdmin said:Reporting back with a partial result, because a partial result is still better than silence.
Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. Pushing back on the consensus forming here. Consistency is not the same as correctness, and a board that agrees with itself quickly is usually agreeing with the first person who sounded certain.
Admin said:Reporting back with a partial result, because a partial result is still better than silence.
Right, and the exception is worth naming rather than left implied, because the exception is where people get into trouble.