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.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.
Dr.RheumBOS said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
Second this. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.
Dr.RheumBOS said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. 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.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsOne concrete data point for the thread. The boring version of this is the one that works, and the boring version is: measure a baseline, change one variable, wait, measure again under the same conditions. Nobody wants that answer and it is still the answer.
Following on from Dr.RheumBOS — and this may be the naive question:
Was that from a primary source or from a summary of one?