Dr.DermMIA said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
Mine went the same way, slower. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.
Dr.DermMIA said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
Mine went the same way, slower. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.
Dr.DermMIA said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked. Narrow it and it becomes tractable; leave it broad and the thread will produce nine confident and incompatible replies.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.
The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. 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.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsFollowing on from Dr.DermMIA — and this may be the naive question:
What did you change at the same time, and can you separate the two now?
OP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.
For the archive: it took about six weeks rather than the two I expected, and the difference between those two numbers was the whole of my problem.