nancy_portland said:Update — I was wrong in the opening post, specifically about the direction.
Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. Not convinced. The evidence being cited is consistent with the conclusion and also consistent with two other conclusions nobody has ruled out.
nancy_portland said:Update — I was wrong in the opening post, specifically about the direction.
Right, and the exception is worth naming rather than left implied, because the exception is where people get into trouble.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.
nancy_portland said:Update — I was wrong in the opening post, specifically about the direction.
Genuinely useful, thank you. I had the facts and not the framework. 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 StandardsAdding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. 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.
LipidDoc_ATL said:It helps to say which part of this you are uncertain about.
Second this. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.