Dr.PeteFamMed said:The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. Most of what circulates confidently in this community traces back to one summary of one study, and the qualifier was dropped somewhere in the third retelling.
Happy to go further on any of that.
Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number. A figure without its method cannot be checked, and an unchecked figure is how this community accumulates folklore.
Happy to go further on any of that.
One thing that is still open after Dr.PeteFamMed’s answer:
Did your prescriber agree with that reading, and if not what was their objection?
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference Standardslisa_labSD said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
Pushing back on lisa_labSD here. Pushing back on the consensus forming here. Consistency is not the same as correctness, and a board that agrees with itself quickly is usually agreeing with the first person who sounded certain.
lisa_labSD said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
Correct as far as it goes. The part it does not cover is what to do when the honest answer is "not enough data", which is more often than anyone likes.