Dr.RheumBOS said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
True, and it depends on a baseline nobody has stated. Without knowing where someone started, the same number can be an excellent result or a disappointing one.
pam_stl said:Agreed, with a caveat about community reputation: it is a lagging indicator.
Bookmarking. The distinction being drawn above is the one nobody else makes.
Dr.RheumBOS said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
I read this differently from Dr.RheumBOS, on substance rather than tone. 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.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
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 BiochemAdding the numbers, since they settle part of this. 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.
Moderator note: reminder that nothing in this thread is medical advice, and that clinical claims need a source.