jason_paloalto said:Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.
This answered a question I did not know how to ask.
Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. 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.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.
andrew_nyc said:The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person.
Mine went the same way, slower. Nothing to add that would improve it.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference Standardsandrew_nyc said:The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person.
Coming at andrew_nyc’s question from a different direction. The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked. Narrow it and it becomes tractable; leave it broad and the thread will produce nine confident and incompatible replies.
One concrete data point for the thread. For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine. Half the figures circulating in this community trace back to a secondary summary that dropped a qualifier.