PeptideSynthNJ 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. Printing the relevant bit and taking it with me.
Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. 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.
ingrid_STO said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
This is my experience too, for whatever a second data point is worth. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View Resultsingrid_STO said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. Start from the measurement rather than the conclusion. Almost every disagreement here turns out to be two people measuring different things and comparing the numbers anyway.
Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason. In three months the reason is what you will have forgotten, and the reason is what makes the record worth having.