LindaRN_retired said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the correction. That is slower than asserting, and it is the only version that survives being wrong.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way. Most of the apparent contradictions in these threads dissolve at that step.
One thing that is still open after LindaRN_retired’s answer:
How would you tell the difference between that and the alternative explanation?
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View Resultsbri_stats said:If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way.
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. Pushing back on the anecdote-stacking. Twenty people reporting the same thing is twenty samples from the same self-selected pool, not twenty independent confirmations.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.
bri_stats said:If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way.
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.