Dr.EndoIndy said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. Start from the measurement rather than the conclusion. Almost every disagreement here turns out to be two people measuring different things and comparing the numbers anyway.
The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way. Most of the apparent contradictions in these threads dissolve at that step.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
Following on from Dr.EndoIndy — and this may be the naive question:
What would you measure differently if you were starting again?
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsFound this through search years later and it is still the best discussion of the question, so adding one thing. Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath. An edited-away mistake is invisible to the next person who makes it.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
PharmacoVig_BOS said:If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way.
No disagreement, though it depends on where somebody is starting from, and this thread has been assuming a starting point nobody stated.