paige_pharma said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
Adding a me-too, because a thread of one person's experience is not much use. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.
paige_pharma said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
Coming at paige_pharma’s question from a different direction. It helps to say which part of this you are uncertain about. A precise question gets a precise answer; a general one gets everybody’s favourite anecdote.
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.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsFollowing on from paige_pharma — and this may be the naive question:
Was that from a primary source or from a summary of one?
OP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.
Follow-up — getting the denial reason in writing was the step that mattered. It named the criterion, and the criterion was a document I already had.