Admin said:Reporting back for the archive rather than for the thread: I did the narrow version of what was suggested, gave it the full interval, and it settled.
This is exactly what I could not find anywhere else. Sending this to two other people who asked me the same thing last week.
Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. 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.
Found this through search years later and it is still the best discussion of the question, so adding one thing. For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine. Half the figures circulating in this community trace back to a secondary summary that dropped a qualifier.
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 BiochemDr.ReproEndo said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. It helps to say which part of this you are uncertain about. A precise question gets a precise answer; a general one gets everybody’s favourite anecdote.
Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. One practical note: write down what you did and when, before you need it. Reconstructing a timeline from memory three months later is how people end up unable to answer the one question that would have resolved it.