NurseKim_ATL said:Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. Take it one variable at a time. Almost every unanswerable question in these threads is unanswerable because three things changed in the same fortnight, and no amount of subsequent argument can untangle them after the fact.
One concrete data point for the thread. 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.
One thing that is still open after NurseKim_ATL’s answer:
What would you measure differently if you were starting again?
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.
Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. This treats a plausible mechanism as a demonstrated one. Plausible is where you start looking, not where you stop.
PeptideSynthNJ said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
True, with the qualification that this is a self-selected group. The people for whom it did not work post less, and that shapes everything we think we know.
Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.