Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked. Narrow it and it becomes tractable; leave it broad and the thread will produce nine confident and incompatible replies.
Dr.CardioMD said:The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked.
This is my experience too, for whatever a second data point is worth. Posting only so the count is not one.
Dr.CardioMD said:The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked.
Coming at Dr.CardioMD’s question from a different direction. 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.
Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsThe figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. 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.
One thing that is still open after Dr.CardioMD’s answer:
What would you measure differently if you were starting again?