Following on from chris_chi24 — and this may be the naive question:
Did your prescriber agree with that reading, and if not what was their objection?
mike_mealprep said: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…
I do not accept the framing. The question has been narrowed to the version that has a tidy answer, and the part that was dropped is the part the OP actually asked about.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
mike_mealprep said: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…
No disagreement, though it depends on where somebody is starting from, and this thread has been assuming a starting point nobody stated.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference Standardsmike_mealprep said: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…
Thank you for spelling out the reasoning rather than just the conclusion. Taking it to my next appointment.
From the other side of the consultation, briefly. Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the correction. That is slower than asserting, and it is the only version that survives being wrong.