Following on from anna.melb_AU — and this may be the naive question:
What did you change at the same time, and can you separate the two now?
raj_cambridge said:Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a…
I read this differently. The confidence in this thread is running ahead of the evidence, and I would rather the uncertainty were stated than smoothed over because it is unsatisfying.
Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.
raj_cambridge said:Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a…
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 Standardsraj_cambridge said:Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a…
Thank you for spelling out the reasoning rather than just the conclusion. Sending this to two other people who asked me the same thing last week.
OP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.
Follow-up — getting the denial reason in writing was the step that mattered. It named the criterion, and the criterion was a document I already had.