Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. 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 retelling.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.
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.
A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
What did you change at the same time, and can you separate the two now?
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.
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. Pushing back on the anecdote-stacking. Twenty people reporting the same thing is twenty samples from the same self-selected pool, not twenty independent confirmations.
Happy to go further on any of that.