BethLabQueen said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. 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.
BethLabQueen said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
Agreed, with the usual condition: that holds for the average and this board is a collection of individuals. A population claim and a personal prediction are different things and get quoted interchangeably.
BethLabQueen said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
This answered a question I did not know how to ask. Printing the relevant bit and taking it with me.
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsFrom the other side of the consultation, briefly. 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.
Dr.KarenChen said:The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either.
Second this. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.