One concrete data point for the thread. Worth stating the units and the reference range whenever you post a number here. A large fraction of the apparent disagreement in these threads is two people using different units and both being right.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
One thing that is still open after james_edin’s answer:
Did your prescriber agree with that reading, and if not what was their objection?
stefan_berlin said:Worth stating the units and the reference range whenever you post a number here.
Coming at stefan_berlin’s question from a different direction. There is a difference between no evidence and evidence of no effect, and this subject is one where the two get swapped freely in both directions.
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 BiochemClosing the loop on my own question.
Closing this out. What actually changed my mind was the point about waiting for a trend instead of reading a single measurement, which is embarrassing in hindsight and worth saying anyway.
TrialTracker_MD said:There is a difference between no evidence and evidence of no effect, and this subject is one where the two get swapped freely in both directions.
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.