From the other side of the consultation, briefly. It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false. If nothing would look different, it is not a claim about the world and no amount of discussion will settle it.
dan_philly said:Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason.
Bookmarking. The distinction being drawn above is the one nobody else makes.
Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. 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.
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 BiochemPeptideChemSF said:The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked.
This matches mine closely enough to be worth saying so out loud. Nothing to add that would improve it.
Moderator note: leaving this open. It is being argued well and the disagreement is the useful part. Report rather than reply if it drifts again.