Dr.LipidDallas said:Most of what circulates confidently in this community traces back to one summary of one study, and the qualifier was dropped somewhere in the third…
Can confirm. Same sequence, different timescale.
Dr.LipidDallas said:Most of what circulates confidently in this community traces back to one summary of one study, and the qualifier was dropped somewhere in the third…
Coming at Dr.LipidDallas’s question from a different direction. It helps to say which part of this you are uncertain about. A precise question gets a precise answer; a general one gets everybody’s favourite anecdote.
One concrete data point for the thread. Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath. An edited-away mistake is invisible to the next person who makes it.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsLabKate said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
Pushing back on LabKate here. This treats a plausible mechanism as a demonstrated one. Plausible is where you start looking, not where you stop.