PharmacoVig_BOS said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
True, and it depends on a baseline nobody has stated. Without knowing where someone started, the same number can be an excellent result or a disappointing one.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.
PharmacoVig_BOS said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
Saving this. It is the first explanation that did not require me to already understand it. Sending this to two other people who asked me the same thing last week.
Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not. That is answerable; arguing about which sounds more plausible is not.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsLindaRN_retired said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
Same pattern here, and in the same order. Posting only so the count is not one.
LindaRN_retired said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
Coming at LindaRN_retired’s question from a different direction. The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked. Narrow it and it becomes tractable; leave it broad and the thread will produce nine confident and incompatible replies.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.