FDA_TrackerJim said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
Genuinely useful, thank you. I had the facts and not the framework. I will report back once I have actually tried it.
Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. 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.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.
Dr.NutriCornell said:Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.
Same experience, arrived at from the opposite direction. Posting only so the count is not one.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsDr.NutriCornell said:Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the correction. That is slower than asserting, and it is the only version that survives being wrong.
OP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.
Late follow-up. I did not do what was suggested, I did something adjacent, and it worked; posting the difference in case it matters to somebody.