One thing that is still open after Dr.RaviCardio’s answer:
What would you measure differently if you were starting again?
One thing that is still open after Dr.RaviCardio’s answer:
What would you measure differently if you were starting again?
quinn_sf said:If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way.
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. 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.
quinn_sf said:If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way.
Correct as far as it goes. The part it does not cover is what to do when the honest answer is "not enough data", which is more often than anyone likes.
Trusted third-party HPLC & mass spectrometry analysis. Verify peptide purity with the lab the community relies on. Independent. Accurate. Transparent.
Verify Your PeptidesEst. 1998. The synthesis house behind the vials you send for testing. ISO 9001 and cGMP certified, 1,500+ staff, batch-specific COA with every order.
Browse GL Biochemquinn_sf said:If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way.
Saving this. It is the first explanation that did not require me to already understand it. Printing the relevant bit and taking it with me.
Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. 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.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.