Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated. Those two sets overlap less than the confident tone of most write-ups suggests, and the second set is where nearly all the disagreement on this board comes from.
claudia_zurich said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
Can confirm. Same sequence, different timescale. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.
claudia_zurich said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. 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.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsAdding the numbers, since they settle part of this. For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine. Half the figures circulating in this community trace back to a secondary summary that dropped a qualifier.
One thing that is still open after claudia_zurich’s answer:
Did your prescriber agree with that reading, and if not what was their objection?