Adding 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.
A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
How would you tell the difference between that and the alternative explanation?
NicoleRaleigh said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
I read this differently from NicoleRaleigh, on substance rather than tone. 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.
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 BiochemNicoleRaleigh said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
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.
OP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.
Follow-up — getting the denial reason in writing was the step that mattered. It named the criterion, and the criterion was a document I already had.