Dr.NephBHM_UK said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
Mine went the same way, slower. Nothing to add that would improve it.
Dr.NephBHM_UK said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. 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.
Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. 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 StandardsReporting back.
Update: the thing I was blaming turned out not to be the cause. Leaving the original post as written rather than editing it, so the mistake stays visible for whoever searches this next.
pete_nash said:Update: the thing I was blaming turned out not to be the cause.
I read this differently from pete_nash, on substance rather than tone. I would resist the confidence. Half of what this board was certain about two years ago has since been quietly dropped, and nobody went back to correct the threads.