Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated. Those two sets overlap less than the confident tone of most write-ups suggests, and the second set is where nearly all the disagreement on this board comes from.
One thing that is still open after steve_okc’s answer:
What would you measure differently if you were starting again?
KevinCompounds said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. Not convinced. The evidence being cited is consistent with the conclusion and also consistent with two other conclusions nobody has ruled out.
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 StandardsKevinCompounds said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
That is right for the common case. Whether it is right for the case being asked about depends on a detail that has not been given.