One concrete data point for the thread. 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.
Happy to go further on any of that.
One thing that is still open after newstart_MO’s answer:
What did you change at the same time, and can you separate the two now?
raj_cambridge 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. I would resist the confidence. Half of what this board was certain about two years ago has since been quietly dropped, and nobody went back to correct the threads.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View Resultsraj_cambridge said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
raj_cambridge has the substance of this right. The condition it depends on is worth stating. Yes, and the corollary is less popular: if the reasoning holds, it also holds where it produces an answer we do not like.
raj_cambridge said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
Thank you for spelling out the reasoning rather than just the conclusion. Adding it to my notes with a link back to this thread.