A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
Was that from a primary source or from a summary of one?
A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
Was that from a primary source or from a summary of one?
kevin_tulsa said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
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.
kevin_tulsa said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
No disagreement, though the timescale matters more than the mechanism here. Most of what looks like a difference in kind turns out to be a difference in how long somebody waited.
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 Biochemkevin_tulsa said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
This answered a question I did not know how to ask. Adding it to my notes with a link back to this thread.
Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. Start from the measurement rather than the conclusion. Almost every disagreement here turns out to be two people measuring different things and comparing the numbers anyway.