chris_chi24 said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
Second this. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.
chris_chi24 said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. 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 retelling.
The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. One practical note: write down what you did and when, before you need it. Reconstructing a timeline from memory three months later is how people end up unable to answer the one question that would have resolved it.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsA narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
Did your prescriber agree with that reading, and if not what was their objection?
Reporting back.
For the archive: it took about six weeks rather than the two I expected, and the difference between those two numbers was the whole of my problem.