dave_SLC said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
Agreed, with the usual condition: that holds for the average and this board is a collection of individuals. A population claim and a personal prediction are different things and get quoted interchangeably.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
dave_SLC said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
That reframing is the part I needed.
Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. Take it one variable at a time. Almost every unanswerable question in these threads is unanswerable because three things changed in the same fortnight, and no amount of subsequent argument can untangle them after the fact.
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsLipidDoc_ATL said:Almost every unanswerable question in these threads is unanswerable because three things changed in the same fortnight, and no amount of subsequent…
Second this.
LipidDoc_ATL said:Almost every unanswerable question in these threads is unanswerable because three things changed in the same fortnight, and no amount of subsequent…
Coming at LipidDoc_ATL’s question from a different direction. If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself. Four weeks is the usual minimum for anything pharmacological on this board, and two weeks of data has told you almost nothing.