Dr.PeteFamMed said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
Coming at Dr.PeteFamMed’s question from a different direction. It helps to say which part of this you are uncertain about. A precise question gets a precise answer; a general one gets everybody’s favourite anecdote.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.
The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. 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.
One thing that is still open after Dr.PeteFamMed’s answer:
What would you measure differently if you were starting again?
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsDr.PathRoch said:If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself.
I read this differently from Dr.PathRoch, on substance rather than tone. Pushing back on the anecdote-stacking. Twenty people reporting the same thing is twenty samples from the same self-selected pool, not twenty independent confirmations.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
Dr.PathRoch said:If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself.
Right, and the exception is worth naming rather than left implied, because the exception is where people get into trouble.