Reporting back.
Update, and it is the boring outcome: nothing was wrong. The measurement I was reading had moved less than its own week-to-week variation, which somebody said upthread and I did not believe.
Reporting back.
Update, and it is the boring outcome: nothing was wrong. The measurement I was reading had moved less than its own week-to-week variation, which somebody said upthread and I did not believe.
jason_paloalto said:If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way.
This answered a question I did not know how to ask.
Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either. Those three things can all be true at once, and most arguments here are two people holding different parts of that.
Trusted third-party HPLC & mass spectrometry analysis. Verify peptide purity with the lab the community relies on. Independent. Accurate. Transparent.
Verify Your PeptidesEst. 1998. The synthesis house behind the vials you send for testing. ISO 9001 and cGMP certified, 1,500+ staff, batch-specific COA with every order.
Browse GL BiochemDebRD_ATL said:The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either.
Adding a me-too, because a thread of one person's experience is not much use. Posting only so the count is not one.
DebRD_ATL said:The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. 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.