james_edin said: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…
That is correct as far as it goes, and here is where it stops going. Yes, and the corollary is less popular: if the reasoning holds, it also holds where it produces an answer we do not like.
Happy to go further on any of that.
FDA_TrackerJim said:Agreed on the target, with the caveat that reference weight and current weight are different numbers.
Genuinely useful, thank you. I had the facts and not the framework. Printing the relevant bit and taking it with me.
james_edin said: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…
Pushing back on james_edin here. This treats a plausible mechanism as a demonstrated one. Plausible is where you start looking, not where you stop.
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsThe figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. 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.
Moderator note: reminder that nothing in this thread is medical advice, and that clinical claims need a source. No action needed from anybody.