raj_cambridge said:Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason.
Pushing back on raj_cambridge here. Pushing back on the anecdote-stacking. Twenty people reporting the same thing is twenty samples from the same self-selected pool, not twenty independent confirmations.
raj_cambridge said:Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason.
That is right, and it stops being right at the edges. The general case is well behaved; the interesting cases in this thread are all at the boundary where the general case breaks.
Happy to go further on any of that.
raj_cambridge said:Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason.
Saving this. It is the first explanation that did not require me to already understand it. Sending this to two other people who asked me the same thing last week.
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 BiochemClinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either. Those three things can all be true at once, and most arguments here are two people holding different parts of that.
Closing the loop on my own question.
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.