Dr.PathRoch said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
True, and it depends on a baseline nobody has stated. Without knowing where someone started, the same number can be an excellent result or a disappointing one.
claudia_zurich said:Yes, and the corollary is less popular: if the reasoning holds, it also holds where it produces an answer we do not like.
Thank you for spelling out the reasoning rather than just the conclusion. I will report back once I have actually tried it.
Dr.PathRoch said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
Pushing back on Dr.PathRoch here. I would resist the confidence. Half of what this board was certain about two years ago has since been quietly dropped, and nobody went back to correct the threads.
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 BiochemAdding the numbers, since they settle part of this. 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.
Moderator note: reminder that nothing in this thread is medical advice, and that clinical claims need a source. No action needed from anybody.