VendorMark said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. Pushing back on the anecdote-stacking. Twenty people reporting the same thing is twenty samples from the same self-selected pool, not twenty independent confirmations.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
VendorMark said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
Agreed, and the size of the effect matters as much as its existence. Something real and small gets treated here as though it were real and decisive.
VendorMark said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
This answered a question I did not know how to ask.
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. It helps to say which part of this you are uncertain about. A precise question gets a precise answer; a general one gets everybody’s favourite anecdote.
OP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.
Resolved, and the thing that resolved it was the least interesting suggestion in the thread. Writing that down for the next person who wants the interesting answer.