hans_munich said:It helps to ask what evidence would change your mind before you look at any.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person. Both are real; they answer different questions and get quoted as if they were the same one.
Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. 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.
Following on from hans_munich — and this may be the naive question:
Was that from a primary source or from a summary of one?
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsPeptideSynthNJ said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. This treats a plausible mechanism as a demonstrated one. Plausible is where you start looking, not where you stop.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.
PeptideSynthNJ said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
That is right for the common case. Whether it is right for the case being asked about depends on a detail that has not been given.