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.
Thank you — that is the clearest version of this I have read, and I have read a lot of them.
Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. 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.
andrew_nyc said:It helps to say which part of this you are uncertain about.
Mine went the same way, slower. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference Standardsandrew_nyc said:It helps to say which part of this you are uncertain about.
Coming at andrew_nyc’s question from a different direction. Take it one variable at a time. Almost every unanswerable question in these threads is unanswerable because three things changed in the same fortnight, and no amount of subsequent argument can untangle them after the fact.
One concrete data point for the thread. Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look. It is a small discipline and it changes what you notice.