Dr.SleepRoch said:The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked.
Agreeing with Dr.SleepRoch, and the qualification matters more than the agreement. Yes, and the corollary is less popular: if the reasoning holds, it also holds where it produces an answer we do not like.
Dr.PainCLE said:I would put less weight on the timescale, because two months of anything is not enough to distinguish a trend from a wobble.
Thank you — that is the clearest version of this I have read, and I have read a lot of them.
Dr.SleepRoch said:The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked.
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.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsOne concrete data point for the thread. 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.