kate.chem said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
Pushing back on kate.chem here. Filing an objection on the n=1 problem. Personal experience is genuine evidence about one person and very weak evidence about anybody else, and this thread keeps promoting the first into the second.
kate.chem said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
No disagreement, though the timescale matters more than the mechanism here. Most of what looks like a difference in kind turns out to be a difference in how long somebody waited.
kate.chem said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
Saving this. It is the first explanation that did not require me to already understand it.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsFrom the other side of the consultation, briefly. 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.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.
Dr.AddMedPHL said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
Second this.