nick_SD_fit said:That holds where the measurement is reliable.
Adding a me-too, because a thread of one person's experience is not much use. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.
nick_SD_fit said:That holds where the measurement is reliable.
Coming at nick_SD_fit’s question from a different direction. Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the correction. That is slower than asserting, and it is the only version that survives being wrong.
One concrete data point for the thread. If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way. Most of the apparent contradictions in these threads dissolve at that step.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsFollowing on from nick_SD_fit — and this may be the naive question:
How long did you give it before you decided it was working?
jason_paloalto said:If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way.
I read this differently from jason_paloalto, on substance rather than tone. This treats a plausible mechanism as a demonstrated one. Plausible is where you start looking, not where you stop.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.