lisa_labSD said:Yes, and the corollary is less popular: if the reasoning holds, it also holds where it produces an answer we do not like.
This matches mine closely enough to be worth saying so out loud.
lisa_labSD said:Yes, and the corollary is less popular: if the reasoning holds, it also holds where it produces an answer we do not like.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. 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.
Happy to go further on any of that.
One concrete data point for the thread. Worth stating the units and the reference range whenever you post a number here. A large fraction of the apparent disagreement in these threads is two people using different units and both being right.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsOne thing that is still open after lisa_labSD’s answer:
How long did you give it before you decided it was working?
PeptideSynthNJ said:Worth stating the units and the reference range whenever you post a number here.
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. Pushing back on the anecdote-stacking. Twenty people reporting the same thing is twenty samples from the same self-selected pool, not twenty independent confirmations.