Dr.EndoEP said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
This matches mine closely enough to be worth saying so out loud. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.
Reporting back.
For the archive: it took about six weeks rather than the two I expected, and the difference between those two numbers was the whole of my problem.
Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath. An edited-away mistake is invisible to the next person who makes it.
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:
What would you measure differently if you were starting again?
quinn_sf 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. The counter-case has not been addressed. Somebody upthread described the situation that does not fit, and the thread moved on rather than engaging with it, which is the failure mode this board is supposed to avoid.