sophie_paris said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
Coming at sophie_paris’s question from a different direction. It helps to say which part of this you are uncertain about. A precise question gets a precise answer; a general one gets everybody’s favourite anecdote.
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 sophie_paris — and this may be the naive question:
Was that from a primary source or from a summary of one?
Janoshik Analytical — Independent Testing
Trusted third-party HPLC & mass spectrometry analysis. Verify peptide purity with the lab the community relies on. Independent. Accurate. Transparent.
Verify Your PeptidesGL Biochem (Shanghai) Ltd. — Direct Manufacturer
Est. 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 Biochemstefan_berlin said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
I read this differently from stefan_berlin, on substance rather than tone. 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.
stefan_berlin said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
Agreed on the substance. I would put less weight on the timescale, because two months of anything is not enough to distinguish a trend from a wobble.