Dr.PainCLE said:The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not. That is answerable; arguing about which sounds more plausible is not.
Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way. Most of the apparent contradictions in these threads dissolve at that step.
A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
How long did you give it before you decided it was working?
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsVendorMark said:If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way.
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. 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.
VendorMark said:If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way.
Fair, and it stops being fair at the extremes. The middle of the range is well understood; the ends are where the honest answer is that nobody knows.