TrialTracker_MD said:I did not do what was suggested, I did something adjacent, and it worked; posting the difference in case it matters to somebody.
Same experience, arrived at from the opposite direction.
TrialTracker_MD said:I did not do what was suggested, I did something adjacent, and it worked; posting the difference in case it matters to somebody.
Coming at TrialTracker_MD’s question from a different direction. The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person. Both are real; they answer different questions and get quoted as if they were the same one.
One concrete data point for the thread. Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason. In three months the reason is what you will have forgotten, and the reason is what makes the record worth having.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsOne thing that is still open after TrialTracker_MD’s answer:
Was that from a primary source or from a summary of one?
quinn_sf said:Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason.
Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. This treats a plausible mechanism as a demonstrated one. Plausible is where you start looking, not where you stop.