dave_SLC said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
I am going to disagree with the direction of travel here. The thread has converged on the tidiest answer rather than the best-supported one, and those are not the same thing.
dave_SLC said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
Agreed, with the usual condition: that holds for the average and this board is a collection of individuals. A population claim and a personal prediction are different things and get quoted interchangeably.
dave_SLC said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
Bookmarking. The distinction being drawn above is the one nobody else makes. Adding it to my notes with a link back to this thread.
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 BiochemAdding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. Most of what circulates confidently in this community traces back to one summary of one study, and the qualifier was dropped somewhere in the third retelling.
Reporting back.
Late follow-up. I did not do what was suggested, I did something adjacent, and it worked; posting the difference in case it matters to somebody.