EndoResFellow said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
No disagreement with EndoResFellow. One condition attached. Yes, and the corollary is less popular: if the reasoning holds, it also holds where it produces an answer we do not like.
paul_denver said:Agreed, and one detail people underrate: an irreversible payment removes your only leverage in a dispute, so it should be the last step rather than…
This answered a question I did not know how to ask.
EndoResFellow said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
I read this differently. The confidence in this thread is running ahead of the evidence, and I would rather the uncertainty were stated than smoothed over because it is unsatisfying.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsThe 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.
Worth separating that from paying for it, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.
Moderator note: leaving this open. It is being argued well and the disagreement is the useful part. Report rather than reply if it drifts again.