VanRx_Mike 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.
PharmacoVig_BOS said:Yes, and the corollary is less popular: if the reasoning holds, it also holds where it produces an answer we do not like.
That reframing is the part I needed. Taking it to my next appointment.
VanRx_Mike said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
Pushing back on VanRx_Mike here. 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.
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsOne concrete data point for the thread. One practical note: write down what you did and when, before you need it. Reconstructing a timeline from memory three months later is how people end up unable to answer the one question that would have resolved it.
Moderator note: a post naming a supplier has been edited. Discuss suppliers in the review sections, not here. Thread quality here is what the rules are for. Keep it up.