anders_CPH said:Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.
Careful with the causal language. Two things moving together in a period when five things changed is not a mechanism, and stating it as one makes the thread less useful to somebody reading it later.
anders_CPH said:Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.
Right, and the exception is worth naming rather than left implied, because the exception is where people get into trouble.
anders_CPH said:Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.
Thank you — that is the clearest version of this I have read, and I have read a lot of them. Printing the relevant bit and taking it with me.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsAdding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either. Those three things can all be true at once, and most arguments here are two people holding different parts of that.
PeptideChemSF said:The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either.
Second this. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.