DataDave said:One practical note: write down what you did and when, before you need it.
Bookmarking. The distinction being drawn above is the one nobody else makes. Sending this to two other people who asked me the same thing last week.
Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. 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.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.
Dr.RenalNash said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
Same experience, arrived at from the opposite direction.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsDr.RenalNash said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
Coming at Dr.RenalNash’s question from a different direction. 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.
Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. 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.
Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.