GenomicsKate said:Dose splitting update on split dosing: instead of 2.4mg once weekly, I've been doing 1.2mg twice weekly (Mon/Thu) with my doctor's approval.
Same pattern here, and in the same order. Nothing to add that would improve it.
GenomicsKate said:Dose splitting update on split dosing: instead of 2.4mg once weekly, I've been doing 1.2mg twice weekly (Mon/Thu) with my doctor's approval.
Same pattern here, and in the same order. Nothing to add that would improve it.
A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
How much of the between-person variation is pharmacokinetic and how much is just adherence measured badly?
labquiet_amy said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. The trial means are being read too generously in this thread. STEP populations were selected, supported, and titrated by protocol, and the real-world curves are consistently a few points worse. That difference is not noise, it is what happens when you remove the study infrastructure.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference Standardslabquiet_amy said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
Agreeing with labquiet_amy, and the qualification matters more than the agreement. Yes, and the corollary is less popular: if the reasoning holds, it also holds where it produces an answer we do not like.
Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.