Dr.EM_Chicago said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
Second this. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.
One thing that is still open after TrialTracker_MD’s answer:
Did your prescriber agree with that reading, and if not what was their objection?
PeptideSynthNJ said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. Not convinced. The evidence being cited is consistent with the conclusion and also consistent with two other conclusions nobody has ruled out.
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 BiochemPeptideSynthNJ said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
PeptideSynthNJ has the substance of this right. The condition it depends on is worth stating. Yes, and the corollary is less popular: if the reasoning holds, it also holds where it produces an answer we do not like.
Moderator note: good thread. Keeping it here rather than moving it, because the question is general enough to be useful. Carry on.