Dr.EM_Chicago said:The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked.
This matches mine closely enough to be worth saying so out loud. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.
kate.chem said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
Saving this. It is the first explanation that did not require me to already understand it. Printing the relevant bit and taking it with me.
Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. 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.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsSarahChen_PharmD said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
Second this.
Moderator note: leaving this open. It is being argued well and the disagreement is the useful part. Report rather than reply if it drifts again.