Dr.EndoIndy said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
That is right, and it stops being right at the edges. The general case is well behaved; the interesting cases in this thread are all at the boundary where the general case breaks.
mike_mealprep said:Agreed, with a caveat about community reputation: it is a lagging indicator.
Saving this. It is the first explanation that did not require me to already understand it. I will report back once I have actually tried it.
Dr.EndoIndy said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
I read this differently from Dr.EndoIndy, on substance rather than tone. The objection nobody has made: this only works if the measurement is doing what we assume it is doing, and that assumption has not been tested here.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsAdding the numbers, since they settle part of this. Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason. In three months the reason is what you will have forgotten, and the reason is what makes the record worth having.
Moderator note: reminder that nothing in this thread is medical advice, and that clinical claims need a source. No action needed from anybody.