emily_PDX said:I did not do what was suggested, I did something adjacent, and it worked; posting the difference in case it matters to somebody.
Can confirm. Same sequence, different timescale. Nothing to add that would improve it.
emily_PDX said:I did not do what was suggested, I did something adjacent, and it worked; posting the difference in case it matters to somebody.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. 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.
Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself. Four weeks is the usual minimum for anything pharmacological on this board, and two weeks of data has told you almost nothing.
Happy to go further on any of that.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsFollowing on from emily_PDX — and this may be the naive question:
How would you tell the difference between that and the alternative explanation?
lucas_SP_BR said:If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself.
I am going to disagree with the direction of travel here. The thread has converged on the tidiest answer rather than the best-supported one, and those are not the same thing.