stefan_berlin said:Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason.
This is exactly what I could not find anywhere else. I will report back once I have actually tried it.
From the other side of the consultation, briefly. The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either. Those three things can all be true at once, and most arguments here are two people holding different parts of that.
PharmHunterJen said:The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either.
This matches mine closely enough to be worth saying so out loud. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.
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 BiochemPharmHunterJen said:The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either.
Coming at PharmHunterJen’s question from a different direction. If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not. That is answerable; arguing about which sounds more plausible is not.
Reporting back.
Closing the loop. The answer turned out to depend on the detail I had left out of the opening post, which is a lesson about how to ask rather than about the subject.