The decimal-point error, and the habit that catches it posts 91–120
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
Post #89 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
Preservative effectiveness is tested against a defined microbial challenge under defined conditions. It is not a licence to treat an entered vial as sterile indefinitely, and no supplier claims otherwise.
Second-hand, so weight it accordingly.
The useful distinction on decimal-point error is between what was measured and what was inferred from it. Both end up in the same sentence and only one of them has error bars.
Speaking only to decimal-point error as I have actually seen it, rather than as it is usually described: the effect is real, it is smaller than the thread suggests, and the variance between people is larger than the effect.
Do not shake. Swirl, or leave it. Vigorous agitation introduces air and shear, and neither helps a peptide go into solution any faster than patience does.
Preservative effectiveness is tested against a defined microbial challenge under defined conditions. It is not a licence to treat an entered vial as sterile indefinitely, and no supplier claims otherwise.
Posting it because the silence on this was starting to look like agreement.
Two claims get bundled together under decimal-point error and they need separating. The descriptive one — this is what was observed — is usually well supported. The causal one — this is why — usually is not.
Almost every disagreement in threads like this one dissolves once you say which of the two you are making.
Confirming post #100 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
Preservative effectiveness is tested against a defined microbial challenge under defined conditions. It is not a licence to treat an entered vial as sterile indefinitely, and no supplier claims otherwise.
I had written a reply contradicting post #103 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
Do not shake. Swirl, or leave it. Vigorous agitation introduces air and shear, and neither helps a peptide go into solution any faster than patience does.
I would call that likely rather than established.
Nobody has said the unglamorous part of decimal-point error yet, so: most of the variation is explained by things that are boring to write about and easy to check.
My experience of decimal-point error contradicts the reply above. I am posting it as a data point rather than as a refutation, because one person's experience is exactly that.
Preservative effectiveness is tested against a defined microbial challenge under defined conditions. It is not a licence to treat an entered vial as sterile indefinitely, and no supplier claims otherwise.
Coming back to post #106, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
Decimal-point error is well covered in the tag pages, and the older discussions are better than the recent ones because they were argued out properly. Worth twenty minutes before adding to this one.
The arithmetic in post #108 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
The reason decimal-point error keeps being re-asked is that the answer is conditional and people quote it without the condition. It is not that the answer is unknown.
Do not shake. Swirl, or leave it. Vigorous agitation introduces air and shear, and neither helps a peptide go into solution any faster than patience does.
Written quickly, so the reasoning may be tighter than the wording.
Decimal-point error would be much easier to settle if anyone reported the denominator. Almost nobody reports the denominator.
Picking up post #109: that is the part I would want checked first.
Adding a null result on decimal-point error. I looked, carefully, and found nothing, and null results deserve posting precisely because they never are.
Coming back to post #109, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
Preservative effectiveness is tested against a defined microbial challenge under defined conditions. It is not a licence to treat an entered vial as sterile indefinitely, and no supplier claims otherwise.
Distinguishing three things in the decimal-point error discussion that keep getting used interchangeably: the observation, the proposed mechanism, and the recommendation that gets attached to both.
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
An update on my earlier decimal-point error post: the pattern held for another six weeks and then stopped, which I did not predict and cannot explain.
Noted, and I have changed what I was going to do on the strength of it.
Decimal-point error is worth one more sentence than it usually gets, and the sentence is the one about how the number was arrived at.
Answering the question post #118 raises rather than the one it answers.
Preservative effectiveness is tested against a defined microbial challenge under defined conditions. It is not a licence to treat an entered vial as sterile indefinitely, and no supplier claims otherwise.
The right answer here may simply be that it has not been measured.
The arithmetic in post #118 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
Trying to state the decimal-point error position in a way that someone who disagrees would recognise as fair, because I do not think the version in this thread passes that test.