Following on from sean_dublin — and this may be the naive question:
How would you tell the difference between that and the alternative explanation?
wendy_avl said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. Pushing back on the consensus forming here. Consistency is not the same as correctness, and a board that agrees with itself quickly is usually agreeing with the first person who sounded certain.
wendy_avl said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
Agreed on the substance. I would put less weight on the timescale, because two months of anything is not enough to distinguish a trend from a wobble.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
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 Biochemwendy_avl said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
This is exactly what I could not find anywhere else. Sending this to two other people who asked me the same thing last week.
Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. Start from the measurement rather than the conclusion. Almost every disagreement here turns out to be two people measuring different things and comparing the numbers anyway.