Dr.AddMedPHL said:If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself.
Saving this. It is the first explanation that did not require me to already understand it. Sending this to two other people who asked me the same thing last week.
Closing the loop on my own question.
My error was treating units as a mass. Once I wrote mg/ml on the vial in marker and worked in millilitres first, the two of us got the same answer.
Found this through search years later and it is still the best discussion of the question, so adding one thing. One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number. A figure without its method cannot be checked, and an unchecked figure is how this community accumulates folklore.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsPharmD_Rodriguez said:Once I wrote mg/ml on the vial in marker and worked in millilitres first, the two of us got the same answer.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it. The narrow version usually has an answer; the broad version usually does not, and answering the broad one is how a thread stops being useful.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. 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.