Dr.MetabolicMD said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. Start from the measurement rather than the conclusion. Almost every disagreement here turns out to be two people measuring different things and comparing the numbers anyway.
Worth separating that from cost and coverage, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.
One concrete data point for the thread. Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look. It is a small discipline and it changes what you notice.
One thing that is still open after Dr.MetabolicMD’s answer:
What actually works on a prior-authorisation denial, as opposed to the list of things that sound like they should work?
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsPeptideSynthNJ said:Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.
Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. The counter-case has not been addressed. Somebody upthread described the situation that does not fit, and the thread moved on rather than engaging with it, which is the failure mode this board is supposed to avoid.
PeptideSynthNJ said:Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.
Right, and the exception is worth naming rather than left implied, because the exception is where people get into trouble.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.