SaraMom3 said:Follow-up: I read the paper rather than the summary and the qualifier I was missing was in the second paragraph of the results.
This is my experience too, for whatever a second data point is worth.
SaraMom3 said:Follow-up: I read the paper rather than the summary and the qualifier I was missing was in the second paragraph of the results.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it. The narrow version usually has an answer; the broad version usually does not, and answering the broad one is how a thread stops being useful.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.
Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath. An edited-away mistake is invisible to the next person who makes it.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsA narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
How would you tell the difference between that and the alternative explanation?
Dr.PeteFamMed said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. Not convinced. The evidence being cited is consistent with the conclusion and also consistent with two other conclusions nobody has ruled out.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.