dave_SLC said:If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself.
Thank you for spelling out the reasoning rather than just the conclusion. Adding it to my notes with a link back to this thread.
Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. 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.
anders_CPH said:The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either.
Second this.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference Standardsanders_CPH said:The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. The provenance questions are more useful than the numbers. Does the report name the batch on your vial. Is the date consistent with when that batch existed. Is it addressed to the vendor or to the person who paid for the test. Was the sample taken from general stock or supplied by the vendor. A perfect certificate for a different batch is worth nothing, and vendor-supplied samples are the most common way a genuine report ends up misleading.
Closing the loop on my own question.
Purity and content being different measurements was the piece I was missing. The vial was overfilled and pure, which is a very different problem from the one I thought I had.