PeptideChemSF said: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…
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. Take it one variable at a time. Almost every unanswerable question in these threads is unanswerable because three things changed in the same fortnight, and no amount of subsequent argument can untangle them after the fact.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.
The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine. Half the figures circulating in this community trace back to a secondary summary that dropped a qualifier.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsDataDave said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
Worth saying that the confident version of this is more useful to the person writing it than to the person reading it.
DataDave said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
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.