NurseAsh_DET said:I did not do what was suggested, I did something adjacent, and it worked; posting the difference in case it matters to somebody.
This matches mine closely enough to be worth saying so out loud. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.
NurseAsh_DET said:I did not do what was suggested, I did something adjacent, and it worked; posting the difference in case it matters to somebody.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. 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.
One concrete data point for the thread. Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look. It is a small discipline and it changes what you notice.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsOne thing that is still open after NurseAsh_DET’s answer:
Did your prescriber agree with that reading, and if not what was their objection?
PeptideChemSF said:Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.
I read this differently from PeptideChemSF, on substance rather than tone. Pushing back on the consensus forming here. Consistency is not the same as correctness, and a board that agrees with itself quickly is usually agreeing with the first person who sounded certain.