RetaRick_CA said:Yes, and the corollary is less popular: if the reasoning holds, it also holds where it produces an answer we do not like.
Can confirm. Same sequence, different timescale.
RetaRick_CA said:Yes, and the corollary is less popular: if the reasoning holds, it also holds where it produces an answer we do not like.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. 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.
Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine. Half the figures circulating in this community trace back to a secondary summary that dropped a qualifier.
Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.
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 BiochemOne thing that is still open after RetaRick_CA’s answer:
What did you change at the same time, and can you separate the two now?
VendorMark said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
I am going to disagree with the direction of travel here. The thread has converged on the tidiest answer rather than the best-supported one, and those are not the same thing.