greg_boulder 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.
Same pattern here, and in the same order.
greg_boulder 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. Take it one variable at a time. Almost every unanswerable question in these threads is unanswerable because three things changed in the same fortnight, and no amount of subsequent argument can untangle them after the fact.
One concrete data point for the thread. 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.
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 long did you give it before you decided it was working?
PeptideChemSF said:Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason.
I read this differently from PeptideChemSF, on substance rather than tone. I think the framing smuggles in the conclusion. Ask it the other way round and the obvious answer reverses, which usually means the question is doing the work.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.