sean_dublin said:Whether it is right for the case being asked about depends on a detail that has not been given.
Can confirm. Same sequence, different timescale.
sean_dublin said:Whether it is right for the case being asked about depends on a detail that has not been given.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. Start from the measurement rather than the conclusion. Almost every disagreement here turns out to be two people measuring different things and comparing the numbers anyway.
One concrete data point for the thread. One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number. A figure without its method cannot be checked, and an unchecked figure is how this community accumulates folklore.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsOne thing that is still open after sean_dublin’s answer:
Was that from a primary source or from a summary of one?
Dr.GutHealth said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. Pushing back on the consensus forming here. Consistency is not the same as correctness, and a board that agrees with itself quickly is usually agreeing with the first person who sounded certain.