jason_paloalto said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
Right, and the exception is worth naming rather than left implied, because the exception is where people get into trouble.
jason_paloalto said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
Thank you — that is the clearest version of this I have read, and I have read a lot of them.
From the other side of the consultation, briefly. 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.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsDr.EM_Chicago said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
This is my experience too, for whatever a second data point is worth. Posting only so the count is not one.
Dr.EM_Chicago said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
Coming at Dr.EM_Chicago’s question from a different direction. The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions. Agreeing that something happens says nothing about whether it happens enough to act on.