NicoleRaleigh said: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…
I read this differently. The confidence in this thread is running ahead of the evidence, and I would rather the uncertainty were stated than smoothed over because it is unsatisfying.
NicoleRaleigh said: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…
True, with the qualification that this is a self-selected group. The people for whom it did not work post less, and that shapes everything we think we know.
NicoleRaleigh said: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…
Saving this. It is the first explanation that did not require me to already understand it. I will report back once I have actually tried 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 BiochemClinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. 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.
Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.
LibrarianMeg said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
Same pattern here, and in the same order. Nothing to add that would improve it.