anders_CPH said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. Order of operations matters more than any single choice here: establish a baseline, change one thing, wait long enough for it to express itself, then measure again under the same conditions.
One concrete data point for the thread. One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number. A figure without its method cannot be checked, and an unchecked figure is how this community accumulates folklore.
Worth separating that from vendor vetting, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.
Following on from anders_CPH — and this may be the naive question:
Was that from a primary source or from a summary of one?
Janoshik Analytical — Independent Testing
Trusted third-party HPLC & mass spectrometry analysis. Verify peptide purity with the lab the community relies on. Independent. Accurate. Transparent.
Verify Your PeptidesGL Biochem (Shanghai) Ltd. — Direct Manufacturer
Est. 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 BiochemPeptideChemSF said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
I read this differently from PeptideChemSF, on substance rather than tone. I would resist the confidence. Half of what this board was certain about two years ago has since been quietly dropped, and nobody went back to correct the threads.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
PeptideChemSF said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
True, and it depends on a baseline nobody has stated. Without knowing where someone started, the same number can be an excellent result or a disappointing one.