hyun_seoul said:Update: the thing I was blaming turned out not to be the cause.
Pushing back on hyun_seoul here. The counter-case has not been addressed. Somebody upthread described the situation that does not fit, and the thread moved on rather than engaging with it, which is the failure mode this board is supposed to avoid.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
hyun_seoul said:Update: the thing I was blaming turned out not to be the cause.
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.
hyun_seoul said:Update: the thing I was blaming turned out not to be the cause.
That reframing is the part I needed. Sending this to two other people who asked me the same thing last week.
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 honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either. Those three things can all be true at once, and most arguments here are two people holding different parts of that.
andrew_nyc said:The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either.
Same pattern here, and in the same order. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.