anders_CPH said:Worth stating the units and the reference range whenever you post a number here.
That reframing is the part I needed.
anders_CPH said:Worth stating the units and the reference range whenever you post a number here.
That reframing is the part I needed.
Reporting back.
Closing the loop. 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.
PedsEndoPhilly 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 matches mine closely enough to be worth saying so out loud. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsPedsEndoPhilly 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.
Coming at PedsEndoPhilly’s question from a different direction. Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the correction. That is slower than asserting, and it is the only version that survives being wrong.
Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. 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.