ben_calgary said:Following this thread I went back and re-read the extension data properly.
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. The objection nobody has made: this only works if the measurement is doing what we assume it is doing, and that assumption has not been tested here.
ben_calgary said:Following this thread I went back and re-read the extension data properly.
Agreed on the substance. I would put less weight on the timescale, because two months of anything is not enough to distinguish a trend from a wobble.
ben_calgary said:Following this thread I went back and re-read the extension data properly.
Saving this. It is the first explanation that did not require me to already understand it.
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. The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked. Narrow it and it becomes tractable; leave it broad and the thread will produce nine confident and incompatible replies.
Worth separating that from the trial evidence, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.
Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.
Dr.BariatricHTX said:The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked.
Can confirm. Same sequence, different timescale. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.