PeptideChemSF said:If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way.
I am going to disagree with the direction of travel here. The thread has converged on the tidiest answer rather than the best-supported one, and those are not the same thing.
PeptideChemSF said:If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way.
True, with the qualification that this is a self-selected group. The people for whom it did not work post less, and that shapes everything we think we know.
PeptideChemSF said:If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way.
This is exactly what I could not find anywhere else. Printing the relevant bit and taking it with me.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsAdding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false. If nothing would look different, it is not a claim about the world and no amount of discussion will settle it.
Closing the loop on my own question.
Closing this out. What actually changed my mind was the point about waiting for a trend instead of reading a single measurement, which is embarrassing in hindsight and worth saying anyway.