LindaRN_retired said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
Adding a me-too, because a thread of one person's experience is not much use. Posting only so the count is not one.
PeptideChemSF said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
Mine went the same way, slower. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.
PeptideChemSF said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. It helps to say which part of this you are uncertain about. A precise question gets a precise answer; a general one gets everybody’s favourite anecdote.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsThe figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. One practical note: write down what you did and when, before you need it. Reconstructing a timeline from memory three months later is how people end up unable to answer the one question that would have resolved it.
Moderator note: reminder that nothing in this thread is medical advice, and that clinical claims need a source. Report rather than reply if it drifts again.