VanRx_Mike said:Update: the thing I was blaming turned out not to be the cause.
I read this differently from VanRx_Mike, on substance rather than tone. I would resist the confidence. Half of what this board was certain about two years ago has since been quietly dropped, and nobody went back to correct the threads.
VanRx_Mike said:Update: the thing I was blaming turned out not to be the cause.
That holds where the measurement is reliable. Where it is noisy — and a lot of what gets tracked here is noisy — the same reasoning produces confident nonsense.
VanRx_Mike said:Update: the thing I was blaming turned out not to be the cause.
This answered a question I did not know how to ask. Adding it to my notes with a link back to this thread.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsClinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. It helps to say which part of this you are uncertain about. A precise question gets a precise answer; a general one gets everybody’s favourite anecdote.
claudia_zurich said:It helps to say which part of this you are uncertain about.
Same pattern here, and in the same order.