Dr.RenalNash said:It helps to ask what evidence would change your mind before you look at any.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it. The narrow version usually has an answer; the broad version usually does not, and answering the broad one is how a thread stops being useful.
Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.
Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath. An edited-away mistake is invisible to the next person who makes it.
Following on from Dr.RenalNash — and this may be the naive question:
What a vetting checklist should actually contain, as opposed to a list of things that are easy to fake?
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsPeptideSynthNJ said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
Pushing back on PeptideSynthNJ here. Filing an objection on the n=1 problem. Personal experience is genuine evidence about one person and very weak evidence about anybody else, and this thread keeps promoting the first into the second.
Reporting back.
Update — I was wrong in the opening post, specifically about the direction. Correcting it here rather than editing it away.