labquiet_amy said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. Not convinced. The evidence being cited is consistent with the conclusion and also consistent with two other conclusions nobody has ruled out.
labquiet_amy said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
That holds where the measurement is reliable. Where it is noisy — and a lot of what gets tracked here is noisy — the same reasoning produces confident nonsense.
labquiet_amy said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
Thank you for spelling out the reasoning rather than just the conclusion. Adding it to my notes with a link back to this thread.
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsClinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person. Both are real; they answer different questions and get quoted as if they were the same one.
OP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.
Update. I did go to 2.4mg in the end, and the honest report is that it bought me less than the step before it and cost me two bad weeks. Worth knowing rather than worth repeating.