FDA_TrackerJim said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
I read this differently from FDA_TrackerJim, on substance rather than tone. Not convinced. The evidence being cited is consistent with the conclusion and also consistent with two other conclusions nobody has ruled out.
FDA_TrackerJim said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
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.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
FDA_TrackerJim said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
This is exactly what I could not find anywhere else. Sending this to two other people who asked me the same thing last week.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsFrom the other side of the consultation, briefly. Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it. The narrow version usually has an answer; the broad version usually does not, and answering the broad one is how a thread stops being useful.