[Lab] selectivity claims are usually receptor-panel marketing
Trying to settle this properly because the thread from last year went in circles.
The claim: thymosin matters. The counter-claim: it is measurement error. Both sides have been asserting it confidently for about 7 months without either producing anything.
What would actually settle it is 31 people measuring the same thing the same way. I have started; my numbers are below. They lean one way but not strongly enough for me to declare victory.
If you have data, post the data. If you have an opinion, flair it as an opinion.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Mechanistically the bit that matters is handling. It explains most of the early profile and a decent chunk of the outcome.
Rodent data is rodent data. Dose scaling is not linear and the models tell you what to investigate, not what to expect.
The confident tone is doing a lot of work that the evidence is not.
Second this question. I have wondered about research peptides for 17 months and never seen a straight answer.
Second this question.
Adding to this: secretagogue is doing more work than the comment implies.
Yeah, identity is the first question.
Which country? Half the answers in this thread only apply in Canada.
Not convinced. The evidence does not support that reading.
- 1Second this question. I have wondered about research peptides for 17 months…5 comments in this branch · started by u/heart_rate_bump