The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine. Half the figures circulating in this community trace back to a secondary summary that dropped a qualifier.
One thing that is still open after roxy_nash’s answer:
What did you change at the same time, and can you separate the two now?
BiostatsBrad 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 BiostatsBrad here. This treats a plausible mechanism as a demonstrated one. Plausible is where you start looking, not where you stop.
Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsBiostatsBrad said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
Agreed on the substance. I would put less weight on the timescale, because two months of anything is not enough to distinguish a trend from a wobble.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
BiostatsBrad said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
Genuinely useful, thank you. I had the facts and not the framework. Printing the relevant bit and taking it with me.