LipidDoc_ATL said:Follow-up: I read the paper rather than the summary and the qualifier I was missing was in the second paragraph of the results.
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. I would resist the confidence. Half of what this board was certain about two years ago has since been quietly dropped, and nobody went back to correct the threads.
LipidDoc_ATL said:Follow-up: I read the paper rather than the summary and the qualifier I was missing was in the second paragraph of the results.
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.
LipidDoc_ATL said:Follow-up: I read the paper rather than the summary and the qualifier I was missing was in the second paragraph of the results.
Thank you — that is the clearest version of this I have read, and I have read a lot of them.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsAdding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated. Those two sets overlap less than the confident tone of most write-ups suggests, and the second set is where nearly all the disagreement on this board comes from.
Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.
LindaRN_retired said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
Same experience, arrived at from the opposite direction.