Dr.RaviCardio said:The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions.
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.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
Dr.NutriCornell said:Right, and one flattering data point from a group buy is not consistency.
This answered a question I did not know how to ask. Sending this to two other people who asked me the same thing last week.
Dr.RaviCardio said:The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions.
Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. 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.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsAdding 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.
Moderator note: two posts asking for a source have been merged into one. Please search the thread before asking again. Report rather than reply if it drifts again.