FDA_TrackerJim said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
Genuinely useful, thank you. I had the facts and not the framework.
FDA_TrackerJim said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
Genuinely useful, thank you. I had the facts and not the framework.
From the other side of the consultation, briefly. The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person. Both are real; they answer different questions and get quoted as if they were the same one.
Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.
sophie_paris said:The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person.
This is my experience too, for whatever a second data point is worth.
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 Biochemsophie_paris said:The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person.
Coming at sophie_paris’s question from a different direction. 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.
Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look. It is a small discipline and it changes what you notice.