FDA_TrackerJim said:Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason.
That reframing is the part I needed. I will report back once I have actually tried it.
From the other side of the consultation, briefly. 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.
Dr.PainCLE said:Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.
This matches mine closely enough to be worth saying so out loud. Nothing to add that would improve it.
Trusted third-party HPLC & mass spectrometry analysis. Verify peptide purity with the lab the community relies on. Independent. Accurate. Transparent.
Verify Your PeptidesEst. 1998. The synthesis house behind the vials you send for testing. ISO 9001 and cGMP certified, 1,500+ staff, batch-specific COA with every order.
Browse GL BiochemDr.PainCLE said:Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. It helps to ask what evidence would change your mind before you look at any. If nothing would, the discussion is not about evidence, and it is better to say so early than to spend nine posts discovering it.
The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. The boring version of this is the one that works, and the boring version is: measure a baseline, change one variable, wait, measure again under the same conditions. Nobody wants that answer and it is still the answer.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.