MASHdoc_SA said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
Can confirm. Same sequence, different timescale. Nothing to add that would improve it.
MASHdoc_SA said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
Coming at MASHdoc_SA’s question from a different direction. Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the correction. That is slower than asserting, and it is the only version that survives being wrong.
The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. The boring version of this is the one that works, and the boring version is: measure a baseline, change one variable, wait, measure again under the same conditions. Nobody wants that answer and it is still the answer.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsA narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
Did your prescriber agree with that reading, and if not what was their objection?
OP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.
Late follow-up. I did not do what was suggested, I did something adjacent, and it worked; posting the difference in case it matters to somebody.