PeptideChemSF said:

If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way.

Agreed, and one caution: a single measurement is not a measurement. Anything that moves day to day needs a trend before it means anything at all.

If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.

PeptideChemSF said:

If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way.

Thank you for spelling out the reasoning rather than just the conclusion. Printing the relevant bit and taking it with me.

From the other side of the consultation, briefly. The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated. Those two sets overlap less than the confident tone of most write-ups suggests, and the second set is where nearly all the disagreement on this board comes from.

pat_auckland said:

The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.

Can confirm. Same sequence, different timescale. Posting only so the count is not one.

pat_auckland said:

The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.

Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions. Agreeing that something happens says nothing about whether it happens enough to act on.