Following on from TrialTracker_MD — and this may be the naive question:
How would you tell the difference between that and the alternative explanation?
jason_paloalto said:I did not do what was suggested, I did something adjacent, and it worked; posting the difference in case it matters to somebody.
Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. This treats a plausible mechanism as a demonstrated one. Plausible is where you start looking, not where you stop.
jason_paloalto said:I did not do what was suggested, I did something adjacent, and it worked; posting the difference in case it matters to somebody.
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.
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 Biochemjason_paloalto said:I did not do what was suggested, I did something adjacent, and it worked; posting the difference in case it matters to somebody.
Thank you for spelling out the reasoning rather than just the conclusion. Adding it to my notes with a link back to this thread.
Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated. Those two sets overlap less than the confident tone of most write-ups suggests, and the second set is where nearly all the disagreement on this board comes from.