Following on from Dr.RenalNash — and this may be the naive question:
What would you measure differently if you were starting again?
GraceAZ_72 said:For the archive: it took about six weeks rather than the two I expected, and the difference between those two numbers was the whole of my problem.
I do not accept the framing. The question has been narrowed to the version that has a tidy answer, and the part that was dropped is the part the OP actually asked about.
GraceAZ_72 said:For the archive: it took about six weeks rather than the two I expected, and the difference between those two numbers was the whole of my problem.
Correct, and worth adding that it is reversible. Nothing being described here is a one-way door, which changes how cautious it is reasonable to be.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsGraceAZ_72 said:For the archive: it took about six weeks rather than the two I expected, and the difference between those two numbers was the whole of my problem.
This is exactly what I could not find anywhere else. Sending this to two other people who asked me the same thing last week.
Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. There is a difference between no evidence and evidence of no effect, and this subject is one where the two get swapped freely in both directions.