josh_phd_bmore said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
Pushing back on josh_phd_bmore here. Pushing back on the consensus forming here. Consistency is not the same as correctness, and a board that agrees with itself quickly is usually agreeing with the first person who sounded certain.
josh_phd_bmore said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
That holds where the measurement is reliable. Where it is noisy — and a lot of what gets tracked here is noisy — the same reasoning produces confident nonsense.
josh_phd_bmore said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
This answered a question I did not know how to ask. I will report back once I have actually tried it.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsClinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. 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.
Closing the loop on my own question.
Closing the loop. The answer turned out to depend on the detail I had left out of the opening post, which is a lesson about how to ask rather than about the subject.