anna.melb_AU said:Start from the measurement rather than the conclusion.
Same pattern here, and in the same order. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.
anna.melb_AU said:Start from the measurement rather than the conclusion.
Same pattern here, and in the same order. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.
anna.melb_AU said:Start from the measurement rather than the conclusion.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. 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.
The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look. It is a small discipline and it changes what you notice.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsFollowing on from anna.melb_AU — and this may be the naive question:
How long did you give it before you decided it was working?
Old thread, but it comes up first when you search for this, so it is worth updating. 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.