pat_auckland said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
True, and it depends on a baseline nobody has stated. Without knowing where someone started, the same number can be an excellent result or a disappointing one.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
LipidDoc_ATL said:Right, and one flattering data point from a group buy is not consistency.
Thank you — that is the clearest version of this I have read, and I have read a lot of them.
pat_auckland said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. The objection nobody has made: this only works if the measurement is doing what we assume it is doing, and that assumption has not been tested here.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsThe figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine. Half the figures circulating in this community trace back to a secondary summary that dropped a qualifier.
Moderator note: leaving this open. It is being argued well and the disagreement is the useful part.