Dr.EM_Chicago said:The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person.
That is right for the common case. Whether it is right for the case being asked about depends on a detail that has not been given.
labquiet_amy said:Agreed, with a caveat about community reputation: it is a lagging indicator.
This is exactly what I could not find anywhere else.
Dr.EM_Chicago said:The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person.
Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. Filing an objection on the n=1 problem. Personal experience is genuine evidence about one person and very weak evidence about anybody else, and this thread keeps promoting the first into the second.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsAdding the numbers, since they settle part of this. One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number. A figure without its method cannot be checked, and an unchecked figure is how this community accumulates folklore.