Following on from PharmD_Rodriguez — and this may be the naive question:
What did you change at the same time, and can you separate the two now?
Reporting back.
Resolved, and the thing that resolved it was the least interesting suggestion in the thread. Writing that down for the next person who wants the interesting answer.
stefan_berlin said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
Agreed, and the size of the effect matters as much as its existence. Something real and small gets treated here as though it were real and decisive.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference Standardsstefan_berlin said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
Genuinely useful, thank you. I had the facts and not the framework. Sending this to two other people who asked me the same thing last week.
From the other side of the consultation, briefly. If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not. That is answerable; arguing about which sounds more plausible is not.