One thing that is still open after Dr.EndoIndy’s answer:
Did your prescriber agree with that reading, and if not what was their objection?
Dr.ObesityLA said:Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. Filing an objection on the n=1 problem. Personal experience is genuine evidence about one person and very weak evidence about anybody else, and this thread keeps promoting the first into the second.
Dr.ObesityLA said:Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.
That is right for the common case. Whether it is right for the case being asked about depends on a detail that has not been given.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsDr.ObesityLA said:Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.
That reframing is the part I needed. Sending this to two other people who asked me the same thing last week.
Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. It helps to ask what evidence would change your mind before you look at any. If nothing would, the discussion is not about evidence, and it is better to say so early than to spend nine posts discovering it.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.