One thing that is still open after anna.melb_AU’s answer:
Was that from a primary source or from a summary of one?
Dr.RaviCardio said:Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.
I am going to disagree with the direction of travel here. The thread has converged on the tidiest answer rather than the best-supported one, and those are not the same thing.
Dr.RaviCardio said:Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.
That is right for the common case. Whether it is right for the case being asked about depends on a detail that has not been given.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsDr.RaviCardio said:Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.
Genuinely useful, thank you. I had the facts and not the framework. I will report back once I have actually tried it.
Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false. If nothing would look different, it is not a claim about the world and no amount of discussion will settle it.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.