One thing that is still open after KevinCompounds’s answer:
What would you measure differently if you were starting again?
jason_sac26 said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. I think the framing smuggles in the conclusion. Ask it the other way round and the obvious answer reverses, which usually means the question is doing the work.
jason_sac26 said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
Agreed, and the size of the effect matters as much as its existence. Something real and small gets treated here as though it were real and decisive.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference Standardsjason_sac26 said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
This answered a question I did not know how to ask. Adding it to my notes with a link back to this thread.
From the other side of the consultation, briefly. The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated. Those two sets overlap less than the confident tone of most write-ups suggests, and the second set is where nearly all the disagreement on this board comes from.