Ha ha ha. And what has orbitrap got to do with this? The issue is not one of sensitivity, gc-ms is already well able to detect Clen well down into single digit picograms. The problem is that without knowing when the Clen entered his system no results irrespective of precision can tell you how much initially entered his body. In fact the simple fact that you imagine the problem to be one of precision betrays your fundamental failure to understand the issue.. or more likely another effort at obfuscation on your part.
And yes. In fact I did address the term 'consistent with' and have done many times before. 'Consistent with' simply means 'is not contradicted by'. It does not mean something is proven or even likely it merely means it is not ruled out by the available facts and it definitely doesn't imply that there are no alternative explanation that are also consistent with the available facts. In fact the language is quite telling of the level of certainty or lack thereof. If the intent had been to convey that food contamination was a highly likely explanation then they could have said the results were 'suggestive of' contamination, which is in fact the exact language that was used by UKAD in their statement on the Whyte case. In legalese or science 'consistent with' means 'well yeah, could be, we can't rule it out' whereas 'suggestive of' means 'yeah, we're pretty sure it's that, but we can't prove it 100%'
Look man, I know you're not even arguing with me but just trying to play to an audience, maybe thinking you'll fool folk with semantics or blind em with irrelevant references to tech but Ive seen enough of your non bull hit posts to know that you're smarter than that and to know that understand me just fine. You know I'm right, man and this conversations just devolving into a farce that you're just keeping going for appearance sake.
So I reckon I'm out.
And yes. In fact I did address the term 'consistent with' and have done many times before. 'Consistent with' simply means 'is not contradicted by'. It does not mean something is proven or even likely it merely means it is not ruled out by the available facts and it definitely doesn't imply that there are no alternative explanation that are also consistent with the available facts. In fact the language is quite telling of the level of certainty or lack thereof. If the intent had been to convey that food contamination was a highly likely explanation then they could have said the results were 'suggestive of' contamination, which is in fact the exact language that was used by UKAD in their statement on the Whyte case. In legalese or science 'consistent with' means 'well yeah, could be, we can't rule it out' whereas 'suggestive of' means 'yeah, we're pretty sure it's that, but we can't prove it 100%'
Look man, I know you're not even arguing with me but just trying to play to an audience, maybe thinking you'll fool folk with semantics or blind em with irrelevant references to tech but Ive seen enough of your non bull hit posts to know that you're smarter than that and to know that understand me just fine. You know I'm right, man and this conversations just devolving into a farce that you're just keeping going for appearance sake.
So I reckon I'm out.
Comment