AussieAnna said:Whether it is right for the case being asked about depends on a detail that has not been given.
Can confirm. Same sequence, different timescale. Posting only so the count is not one.
AussieAnna said:Whether it is right for the case being asked about depends on a detail that has not been given.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. 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.
Happy to go further on any of that.
One concrete data point for the thread. For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine. Half the figures circulating in this community trace back to a secondary summary that dropped a qualifier.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsA narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
What would you measure differently if you were starting again?
BiostatsBrad said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
Pushing back on BiostatsBrad here. The counter-case has not been addressed. Somebody upthread described the situation that does not fit, and the thread moved on rather than engaging with it, which is the failure mode this board is supposed to avoid.