Following on from carl_compliance — and this may be the naive question:
How would you tell the difference between that and the alternative explanation?
Found this through search years later and it is still the best discussion of the question, so adding one thing. 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.
Happy to go further on any of that.
Dr.NateNeph said:Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.
That holds where the measurement is reliable. Where it is noisy — and a lot of what gets tracked here is noisy — the same reasoning produces confident nonsense.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsDr.NateNeph said:Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.
Bookmarking. The distinction being drawn above is the one nobody else makes. Sending this to two other people who asked me the same thing last week.
Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. 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.