The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. 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.
One thing that is still open after Dr.RheumBOS’s answer:
What would you measure differently if you were starting again?
dan_philly said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. This treats a plausible mechanism as a demonstrated one. Plausible is where you start looking, not where you stop.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference Standardsdan_philly said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
No disagreement with dan_philly. One condition attached. Yes, and the corollary is less popular: if the reasoning holds, it also holds where it produces an answer we do not like.
dan_philly said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
Bookmarking. The distinction being drawn above is the one nobody else makes.