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.
Dr.GastroMayo said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
This is my experience too, for whatever a second data point is worth. Nothing to add that would improve it.
Dr.GastroMayo said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. 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.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsThe figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a trend.
Reporting back.
Coming back a few months on. It held. Nothing dramatic to report, which is the report.