InsuranceTom said:Update: approved on the third attempt after a peer-to-peer.
I read this differently from InsuranceTom, on substance rather than tone. This treats a plausible mechanism as a demonstrated one. Plausible is where you start looking, not where you stop.
InsuranceTom said:Update: approved on the third attempt after a peer-to-peer.
Agreed, and one caution: a single measurement is not a measurement. Anything that moves day to day needs a trend before it means anything at all.
InsuranceTom said:Update: approved on the third attempt after a peer-to-peer.
This answered a question I did not know how to ask. Taking it to my next appointment.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsAdding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false. If nothing would look different, it is not a claim about the world and no amount of discussion will settle it.
Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.
claudia_zurich said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
Same experience, arrived at from the opposite direction. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.