Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. 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.
HPLC_Greg said:Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.
Agreeing with HPLC_Greg, and the qualification matters more than the agreement. Yes, and the corollary is less popular: if the reasoning holds, it also holds where it produces an answer we do not like.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.
HPLC_Greg said:Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.
Bookmarking. The distinction being drawn above is the one nobody else makes. Adding it to my notes with a link back to this thread.
Trusted third-party HPLC & mass spectrometry analysis. Verify peptide purity with the lab the community relies on. Independent. Accurate. Transparent.
Verify Your PeptidesEst. 1998. The synthesis house behind the vials you send for testing. ISO 9001 and cGMP certified, 1,500+ staff, batch-specific COA with every order.
Browse GL BiochemClinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either. Those three things can all be true at once, and most arguments here are two people holding different parts of that.