kate.chem said:Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason.
That reframing is the part I needed. Sending this to two other people who asked me the same thing last week.
From the other side of the consultation, briefly. It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false. If nothing would look different, it is not a claim about the world and no amount of discussion will settle it.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
anders_CPH said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
Mine went the same way, slower. Posting only so the count is not one.
Trusted third-party HPLC & mass spectrometry analysis. Verify peptide purity with the lab the community relies on. Independent. Accurate. Transparent.
Verify Your PeptidesEst. 1998. The synthesis house behind the vials you send for testing. ISO 9001 and cGMP certified, 1,500+ staff, batch-specific COA with every order.
Browse GL Biochemanders_CPH said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked. Narrow it and it becomes tractable; leave it broad and the thread will produce nine confident and incompatible replies.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.
One concrete data point for the thread. The boring version of this is the one that works, and the boring version is: measure a baseline, change one variable, wait, measure again under the same conditions. Nobody wants that answer and it is still the answer.