carl_compliance said:Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.
Same pattern here, and in the same order. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.
carl_compliance said:Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.
Same pattern here, and in the same order. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.
carl_compliance said:Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked. Narrow it and it becomes tractable; leave it broad and the thread will produce nine confident and incompatible replies.
Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason. In three months the reason is what you will have forgotten, and the reason is what makes the record worth having.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsA narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
Was that from a primary source or from a summary of one?
wendy_avl said:Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason.
I am going to disagree with the direction of travel here. The thread has converged on the tidiest answer rather than the best-supported one, and those are not the same thing.