A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
What a vetting checklist should actually contain, as opposed to a list of things that are easy to fake?
jim_asheville said:The useful checklist is about verifiability rather than presentation.
Worth saying that the confident version of this is more useful to the person writing it than to the person reading it.
jim_asheville said:The useful checklist is about verifiability rather than presentation.
That is correct as far as it goes, and here is where it stops going. Yes, and the corollary is less popular: if the reasoning holds, it also holds where it produces an answer we do not like.
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 Biochemjim_asheville said:The useful checklist is about verifiability rather than presentation.
That reframing is the part I needed.
From the other side of the consultation, briefly. The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either. Those three things can all be true at once, and most arguments here are two people holding different parts of that.