pat_auckland said:Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the…
Same experience, arrived at from the opposite direction. Nothing to add that would improve it.
PeptideSynthNJ said:Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a…
Coming at PeptideSynthNJ’s question from a different direction. Take it one variable at a time. Almost every unanswerable question in these threads is unanswerable because three things changed in the same fortnight, and no amount of subsequent argument can untangle them after the fact.
The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine. Half the figures circulating in this community trace back to a secondary summary that dropped a qualifier.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsA narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
What did you change at the same time, and can you separate the two now?
Moderator note: good thread. Keeping it here rather than moving it, because the question is general enough to be useful. Tagging this one for the weekly digest.