Sep 12, 2025 at 9:23 AM#16
julia.endo said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
Same pattern here, and in the same order.
20 18Dr.KarenChen, Dr.NateNeph, PharmD_Rodriguez and 17 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
Sep 12, 2025 at 11:33 AM#17
A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
Did your prescriber agree with that reading, and if not what was their objection?
21 19NeuroNate, JessicaH_TX, KevinCompounds and 18 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
Sep 12, 2025 at 1:43 PM#18
DanielChem_CHI said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. This treats a plausible mechanism as a demonstrated one. Plausible is where you start looking, not where you stop.
Last edited: Sep 12, 2025 at 5:43 PM
22 20Dr.NephBHM_UK, kim_atl_prep, sarah_TO and 19 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
PeptideMeter — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsSep 12, 2025 at 3:53 PM#19
DanielChem_CHI said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
Right, and the exception is worth naming rather than left implied, because the exception is where people get into trouble.
23 21Dr.PainCLE, mike_mealprep, NicoleRaleigh and 20 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
Sep 12, 2025 at 6:03 PM#20
Moderator note: the sourcing question belongs in the vendor section and has been split out. Thread quality here is what the rules are for. Keep it up.
Last edited: Sep 12, 2025 at 10:03 PM
45 18PeptideSynthNJ, Dr.KarenChen, Dr.NateNeph and 42 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report