EndoResFellow said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked. Narrow it and it becomes tractable; leave it broad and the thread will produce nine confident and incompatible replies.
Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number. A figure without its method cannot be checked, and an unchecked figure is how this community accumulates folklore.
Following on from EndoResFellow — and this may be the naive question:
Was that from a primary source or from a summary of one?
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 BiochemBiostatsBrad said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
I read this differently from BiostatsBrad, on substance rather than tone. Filing an objection on the n=1 problem. Personal experience is genuine evidence about one person and very weak evidence about anybody else, and this thread keeps promoting the first into the second.
BiostatsBrad said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
Right, and the exception is worth naming rather than left implied, because the exception is where people get into trouble.