rachel_ABQ said:Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.
That holds where the measurement is reliable. Where it is noisy — and a lot of what gets tracked here is noisy — the same reasoning produces confident nonsense.
mike_mealprep said:Right, and one flattering data point from a group buy is not consistency.
Bookmarking. The distinction being drawn above is the one nobody else makes.
rachel_ABQ said:Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. I think the framing smuggles in the conclusion. Ask it the other way round and the obvious answer reverses, which usually means the question is doing the work.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsThe figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself. Four weeks is the usual minimum for anything pharmacological on this board, and two weeks of data has told you almost nothing.
Moderator note: a post naming a supplier has been edited. Discuss suppliers in the review sections, not here. Carry on.