Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either. Those three things can all be true at once, and most arguments here are two people holding different parts of that.
A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
What actually works on a prior-authorisation denial, as opposed to the list of things that sound like they should work?
Dr.Martinez said:The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either.
Pushing back on Dr.Martinez here. The objection nobody has made: this only works if the measurement is doing what we assume it is doing, and that assumption has not been tested here.
Trusted third-party HPLC & mass spectrometry analysis. Verify peptide purity with the lab the community relies on. Independent. Accurate. Transparent.
Verify Your PeptidesEst. 1998. The synthesis house behind the vials you send for testing. ISO 9001 and cGMP certified, 1,500+ staff, batch-specific COA with every order.
Browse GL BiochemDr.Martinez said:The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either.
That is right, and it stops being right at the edges. The general case is well behaved; the interesting cases in this thread are all at the boundary where the general case breaks.
Worth separating that from cost and coverage, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.
Moderator note: leaving this open. It is being argued well and the disagreement is the useful part. Carry on.