A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
What would you measure differently if you were starting again?
A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
What would you measure differently if you were starting again?
emma_london said:Reporting back with a partial result, because a partial result is still better than silence.
I am going to disagree with the direction of travel here. The thread has converged on the tidiest answer rather than the best-supported one, and those are not the same thing.
emma_london said:Reporting back with a partial result, because a partial result is still better than silence.
Agreed, with the usual condition: that holds for the average and this board is a collection of individuals. A population claim and a personal prediction are different things and get quoted interchangeably.
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 Biochememma_london said:Reporting back with a partial result, because a partial result is still better than silence.
That reframing is the part I needed. Sending this to two other people who asked me the same thing last week.
Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false. If nothing would look different, it is not a claim about the world and no amount of discussion will settle it.