raj_cambridge said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
I read this differently from raj_cambridge, on substance rather than tone. Not convinced. The evidence being cited is consistent with the conclusion and also consistent with two other conclusions nobody has ruled out.
raj_cambridge said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
No disagreement, though the timescale matters more than the mechanism here. Most of what looks like a difference in kind turns out to be a difference in how long somebody waited.
raj_cambridge said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
Thank you for spelling out the reasoning rather than just the conclusion. I will report back once I have actually tried it.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsClinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. 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.
Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.
lisa_labSD said:Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.
Same pattern here, and in the same order.