This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1 · go to the accepted answer.
Adding a data point of agreement rather than a data point.
Post #28 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.
Do not adjust a reported figure. Post what the laboratory said and put your interpretation in a separate sentence.
Narrowing post #30, because the general version has more than one answer.
The cost of a submission is worth stating. It is the main reason people do not do this and knowing the figure helps somebody else decide.
That is all the detail I have. Someone else will have more.
Dosing and purity: a vial that is 99% pure might contain 80% of its label claim if the other mass is water, counter-ion, and excipient. Purity and content are different. Both matter for different reasons.
Someone will know this better than I do and I hope they say so.
Reports of ordinary results are more valuable than reports of remarkable ones, precisely because only the remarkable ones get posted elsewhere.
Post #32 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
Do not adjust a reported figure. Post what the laboratory said and put your interpretation in a separate sentence.
Second-hand, so weight it accordingly.
Dosing and purity: a vial that is 99% pure might contain 80% of its label claim if the other mass is water, counter-ion, and excipient. Purity and content are different. Both matter for different reasons.
This follows post #38 rather than contradicting it.
Do not adjust a reported figure. Post what the laboratory said and put your interpretation in a separate sentence.
I have left out the parts I could not verify.
Confirming post #41 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
Do not adjust a reported figure. Post what the laboratory said and put your interpretation in a separate sentence.
If the premise is wrong, everything after it is decoration.
Post #41 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
Photograph the vial and the label before opening. It costs ten seconds and it is what turns a report into something checkable.
Correct me on the arithmetic if it is wrong; I would rather know.
Selective submission and selective reporting are the two easiest ways for a result to be shaped, and blinding addresses the first while a commitment to post addresses the second.
Where I part company with post #41, and it is a narrow parting.
Dosing and purity: a vial that is 99% pure might contain 80% of its label claim if the other mass is water, counter-ion, and excipient. Purity and content are different. Both matter for different reasons.
None of the above is medical advice and I am not qualified to give any.
Post #45 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.
The cost of a submission is worth stating. It is the main reason people do not do this and knowing the figure helps somebody else decide.
If anyone can point at the primary source I would be grateful.
Reports of ordinary results are more valuable than reports of remarkable ones, precisely because only the remarkable ones get posted elsewhere.
Sensible. I would want the same detail before I acted on it either.
Photograph the vial and the label before opening. It costs ten seconds and it is what turns a report into something checkable.
I would hold that lightly until someone with a larger sample weighs in.
That is a fair summary of where the discussion has got to.
Photograph the vial and the label before opening. It costs ten seconds and it is what turns a report into something checkable.
Same conclusion as the reply above, reached differently, which is mildly reassuring.
Reports of ordinary results are more valuable than reports of remarkable ones, precisely because only the remarkable ones get posted elsewhere.
Post #52 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.
The cost of a submission is worth stating. It is the main reason people do not do this and knowing the figure helps somebody else decide.
Where I part company with post #54, and it is a narrow parting.
Dosing and purity: a vial that is 99% pure might contain 80% of its label claim if the other mass is water, counter-ion, and excipient. Purity and content are different. Both matter for different reasons.
Photograph the vial and the label before opening. It costs ten seconds and it is what turns a report into something checkable.
I have changed my mind on this once already, so take it as current rather than settled.
Do not adjust a reported figure. Post what the laboratory said and put your interpretation in a separate sentence.
I would be interested in a counterexample if anyone has one.