OP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.
Update — I was wrong in the opening post, specifically about the direction. Correcting it here rather than editing it away.
Old thread, but it comes up first when you search for this, so it is worth updating. 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.
Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person. Both are real; they answer different questions and get quoted as if they were the same one.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsPeptideChemSF said:The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person.
Second this.
PeptideChemSF said:The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it. The narrow version usually has an answer; the broad version usually does not, and answering the broad one is how a thread stops being useful.