stefan_berlin said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
Correct, and worth adding that it is reversible. Nothing being described here is a one-way door, which changes how cautious it is reasonable to be.
stefan_berlin said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
This is exactly what I could not find anywhere else.
Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person. Both are real; they answer different questions and get quoted as if they were the same one.
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsDr.NephBHM_UK said:The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person.
Same experience, arrived at from the opposite direction. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.
OP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.
Update, and it is the boring outcome: nothing was wrong. The measurement I was reading had moved less than its own week-to-week variation, which somebody said upthread and I did not believe.