DebRD_ATL said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
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.
Dr.PainCLE said:Yes, and the corollary is less popular: if the reasoning holds, it also holds where it produces an answer we do not like.
Thank you for spelling out the reasoning rather than just the conclusion. Adding it to my notes with a link back to this thread.
DebRD_ATL said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. 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.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsThe figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. The boring version of this is the one that works, and the boring version is: measure a baseline, change one variable, wait, measure again under the same conditions. Nobody wants that answer and it is still the answer.