Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated. Those two sets overlap less than the confident tone of most write-ups suggests, and the second set is where nearly all the disagreement on this board comes from.
Happy to go further on any of that.
One thing that is still open after adam_van’s answer:
How would you tell the difference between that and the alternative explanation?
CarlaRPh_TPA said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
Pushing back on CarlaRPh_TPA here. Pushing back on the consensus forming here. Consistency is not the same as correctness, and a board that agrees with itself quickly is usually agreeing with the first person who sounded certain.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsCarlaRPh_TPA said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
That is right, and it stops being right at the edges. The general case is well behaved; the interesting cases in this thread are all at the boundary where the general case breaks.
Moderator note: two posts asking for a source have been merged into one. Please search the thread before asking again. Thread quality here is what the rules are for. Keep it up.