One thing that is still open after PedsEndoPhilly’s answer:
Did your prescriber agree with that reading, and if not what was their objection?
One thing that is still open after PedsEndoPhilly’s answer:
Did your prescriber agree with that reading, and if not what was their objection?
DataDave said: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.
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.
DataDave said: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.
Agreed, and the size of the effect matters as much as its existence. Something real and small gets treated here as though it were real and decisive.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsDataDave said: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.
Saving this. It is the first explanation that did not require me to already understand it.
Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. 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.