tommy_boulder said:Closing this out: the trough rather than the peak explains the pattern I was seeing on day six, which I had been blaming on the vial.
Mine went the same way, slower.
tommy_boulder said:Closing this out: the trough rather than the peak explains the pattern I was seeing on day six, which I had been blaming on the vial.
Coming at tommy_boulder’s question from a different direction. 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.
Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine. Half the figures circulating in this community trace back to a secondary summary that dropped a qualifier.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsFollowing on from tommy_boulder — and this may be the naive question:
How long did you give it before you decided it was working?
wendy_avl 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 read this differently from wendy_avl, on substance rather than tone. Filing an objection on the n=1 problem. Personal experience is genuine evidence about one person and very weak evidence about anybody else, and this thread keeps promoting the first into the second.