FDA_TrackerJim said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. Not convinced. The evidence being cited is consistent with the conclusion and also consistent with two other conclusions nobody has ruled out.
FDA_TrackerJim said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
True, and it depends on a baseline nobody has stated. Without knowing where someone started, the same number can be an excellent result or a disappointing one.
FDA_TrackerJim said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
This is exactly what I could not find anywhere else. I will report back once I have actually tried it.
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. If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not. That is answerable; arguing about which sounds more plausible is not.
TrialNerd_Beth said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
This is my experience too, for whatever a second data point is worth.