NurseLeah_Nash said:The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. It helps to ask what evidence would change your mind before you look at any. If nothing would, the discussion is not about evidence, and it is better to say so early than to spend nine posts discovering it.
Adding 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.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsDoseLogDan said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. The counter-case has not been addressed. Somebody upthread described the situation that does not fit, and the thread moved on rather than engaging with it, which is the failure mode this board is supposed to avoid.
DoseLogDan said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
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.