PharmHunterJen said:It helps to say which part of this you are uncertain about.
Adding a me-too, because a thread of one person's experience is not much use.
PharmHunterJen said:It helps to say which part of this you are uncertain about.
Adding a me-too, because a thread of one person's experience is not much use.
PharmHunterJen said:It helps to say which part of this you are uncertain about.
Coming at PharmHunterJen’s question from a different direction. 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.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look. It is a small discipline and it changes what you notice.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsFollowing on from PharmHunterJen — and this may be the naive question:
Was that from a primary source or from a summary of one?
Reporting back.
For the archive: it took about six weeks rather than the two I expected, and the difference between those two numbers was the whole of my problem.