NicoleRaleigh said:The answer turned out to depend on the detail I had left out of the opening post, which is a lesson about how to ask rather than about the subject.
This is my experience too, for whatever a second data point is worth. Nothing to add that would improve it.
NicoleRaleigh said:The answer turned out to depend on the detail I had left out of the opening post, which is a lesson about how to ask rather than about the subject.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. Take it one variable at a time. Almost every unanswerable question in these threads is unanswerable because three things changed in the same fortnight, and no amount of subsequent argument can untangle them after the fact.
Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.
Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself. Four weeks is the usual minimum for anything pharmacological on this board, and two weeks of data has told you almost nothing.
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 StandardsFollowing on from NicoleRaleigh — and this may be the naive question:
How would you tell the difference between that and the alternative explanation?
josh_phd_bmore said:If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself.
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. The counter-case has not been addressed. Somebody upthread described the situation that does not fit, and the thread moved on rather than engaging with it, which is the failure mode this board is supposed to avoid.