Dr.RheumBOS said:Follow-up: I read the paper rather than the summary and the qualifier I was missing was in the second paragraph of the results.
I am going to disagree with the direction of travel here. The thread has converged on the tidiest answer rather than the best-supported one, and those are not the same thing.
Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.
Dr.RheumBOS said:Follow-up: I read the paper rather than the summary and the qualifier I was missing was in the second paragraph of the results.
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.
Dr.RheumBOS said:Follow-up: I read the paper rather than the summary and the qualifier I was missing was in the second paragraph of the results.
Thank you for spelling out the reasoning rather than just the conclusion.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsFrom the other side of the consultation, briefly. 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.
pat_auckland said:Almost every unanswerable question in these threads is unanswerable because three things changed in the same fortnight, and no amount of subsequent…
Same pattern here, and in the same order. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.