One concrete data point for the thread. One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number. A figure without its method cannot be checked, and an unchecked figure is how this community accumulates folklore.
Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.
A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
Did your prescriber agree with that reading, and if not what was their objection?
Dr.AddMedPHL said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
Pushing back on Dr.AddMedPHL here. Filing an objection on the n=1 problem. Personal experience is genuine evidence about one person and very weak evidence about anybody else, and this thread keeps promoting the first into the second.
Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.
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.AddMedPHL said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
No disagreement, though the timescale matters more than the mechanism here. Most of what looks like a difference in kind turns out to be a difference in how long somebody waited.
Dr.AddMedPHL said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
Thank you for spelling out the reasoning rather than just the conclusion. I will report back once I have actually tried it.