mike_nyc said:Purity and content being different measurements was the piece I was missing.
I read this differently from mike_nyc, on substance rather than tone. 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.
mike_nyc said:Purity and content being different measurements was the piece I was missing.
That is right, and it stops being right at the edges. The general case is well behaved; the interesting cases in this thread are all at the boundary where the general case breaks.
mike_nyc said:Purity and content being different measurements was the piece I was missing.
Bookmarking. The distinction being drawn above is the one nobody else makes.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsFrom the other side of the consultation, briefly. The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated. Those two sets overlap less than the confident tone of most write-ups suggests, and the second set is where nearly all the disagreement on this board comes from.
DeniseRN_TPA said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
Adding a me-too, because a thread of one person's experience is not much use.