Apr 29, 2026 at 11:31 AM#16
Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not. That is answerable; arguing about which sounds more plausible is not.
27 0nick_newbie, DadBodDave, AmyNC_wife and 24 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
Apr 29, 2026 at 7:15 PM#17
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.
That reframing is the part I needed. Printing the relevant bit and taking it with me.
Last edited: Apr 30, 2026 at 1:15 AM
28 1Dr.ReproEndo, lucas_SP_BR, lisa_labSD and 25 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
Apr 30, 2026 at 2:58 AM#18
Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. Most of what circulates confidently in this community traces back to one summary of one study, and the qualifier was dropped somewhere in the third retelling.
29 2AttorneyGrant, DebRD_ATL, KristenIndy and 26 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsApr 30, 2026 at 10:41 AM#19
Dr.PulmRoch said:Most of what circulates confidently in this community traces back to one summary of one study, and the qualifier was dropped somewhere in the third…
Can confirm. Same sequence, different timescale.
Last edited: Apr 30, 2026 at 4:41 PM
30 3Dr.PainCLE, mike_mealprep, NicoleRaleigh and 27 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report