dave_SLC said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
Saving this. It is the first explanation that did not require me to already understand it. I will report back once I have actually tried it.
Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not. That is answerable; arguing about which sounds more plausible is not.
Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.
Dr.SurgeonPGH said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
Can confirm. Same sequence, different timescale.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsDr.SurgeonPGH said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. It helps to say which part of this you are uncertain about. A precise question gets a precise answer; a general one gets everybody’s favourite anecdote.
Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a trend.