Jan 9, 2025 at 7:08 PM#46
One thing that is still open after CarlaRPh_TPA’s answer:
How long did you give it before you decided it was working?
16 16kevin_tulsa, Dr.PainCLE, mike_mealprep and 13 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
Jan 12, 2025 at 6:42 AM#47
Reporting back.
Coming back a few months on. It held. Nothing dramatic to report, which is the report.
Last edited: Jan 12, 2025 at 12:42 PM
15 15GraceAZ_72, carl_compliance, DanielChem_CHI and 12 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
Jan 14, 2025 at 6:14 PM#48
NicoleRaleigh said:If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way.
That is correct as far as it goes, and here is where it stops going. Yes, and the corollary is less popular: if the reasoning holds, it also holds where it produces an answer we do not like.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
Last edited: Jan 14, 2025 at 11:14 PM
14 14HPLC_Greg, LibrarianMeg, bri_stats and 11 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsJan 17, 2025 at 5:45 AM#49
NicoleRaleigh said:If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way.
This is exactly what I could not find anywhere else.
Last edited: Jan 17, 2025 at 7:45 AM
13 13KevinCompounds, TirzTom, TrialTracker_MD and 10 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
Jan 19, 2025 at 5:14 PM#50
Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the correction. That is slower than asserting, and it is the only version that survives being wrong.
41 16sarah_nash92, FitDadDave, RunnerRach and 38 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report