Asked to pay by a method with no recourse, by a supplier I had used twice before without being asked, which is what made me stop.
The narrow version of the question is how people are thinking about the trade-off between reversibility and privacy, because you cannot have both.
Not looking for reassurance. Looking for the part I have got wrong.
Short answer first, then the reasoning. The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked. Narrow it and it becomes tractable; leave it broad and the thread will produce nine confident and incompatible replies.
Happy to go further on any of that.
BenResearch_OR said:The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked.
BenResearch_OR has the substance of this right. The condition it depends on is worth stating. Yes, and the corollary is less popular: if the reasoning holds, it also holds where it produces an answer we do not like.
Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View Resultsmia_MS2 said:Asked to pay by a method with no recourse, by a supplier I had used twice before without being asked, which is what made me stop.
Adding a me-too, because a thread of one person's experience is not much use.
Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. Order of operations matters more than any single choice here: establish a baseline, change one thing, wait long enough for it to express itself, then measure again under the same conditions.