Dr.AddMedPHL 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…
I read this differently from Dr.AddMedPHL, on substance rather than tone. Pushing back on the consensus forming here. Consistency is not the same as correctness, and a board that agrees with itself quickly is usually agreeing with the first person who sounded certain.
The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look. It is a small discipline and it changes what you notice.
Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.
Dr.SurgeonPGH said:Pushing back on the consensus forming here.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. 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 correction. That is slower than asserting, and it is the only version that survives being wrong.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsFollowing on from mike.trainer_LA — and this may be the naive question:
What did you change at the same time, and can you separate the two now?
OP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.
Reporting back with a partial result, because a partial result is still better than silence. Two of the three things suggested helped; I cannot separate them and I am not going to pretend otherwise.