JenPlateau said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
Same pattern here, and in the same order. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.
JenPlateau said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
Coming at JenPlateau’s question from a different direction. Most of what circulates confidently in this community traces back to one summary of one study, and the qualifier was dropped somewhere in the third retelling.
Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.
Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. 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 StandardsA narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
How long did you give it before you decided it was working?
Reporting back.
Reporting back for the archive rather than for the thread: I did the narrow version of what was suggested, gave it the full interval, and it settled. Posting it because threads without a follow-up are half a thread.