anders_CPH said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
Agreed, and the size of the effect matters as much as its existence. Something real and small gets treated here as though it were real and decisive.
anders_CPH said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
Saving this. It is the first explanation that did not require me to already understand it. I will report back once I have actually tried it.
Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. 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.
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 BiochemDr.SurgeonPGH said:The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person.
Mine went the same way, slower.
OP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.
For the archive: it took about six weeks rather than the two I expected, and the difference between those two numbers was the whole of my problem.