Dr.MetabolicMD said:I did go to 2.4mg in the end, and the honest report is that it bought me less than the step before it and cost me two bad weeks.
Same pattern here, and in the same order. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.
Dr.MetabolicMD said:I did go to 2.4mg in the end, and the honest report is that it bought me less than the step before it and cost me two bad weeks.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. 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.
Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason. In three months the reason is what you will have forgotten, and the reason is what makes the record worth having.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
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 BiochemA narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
Was that from a primary source or from a summary of one?
dan_philly said:Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason.
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.