Dr.PeteFamMed said:Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.
I do not accept the framing. The question has been narrowed to the version that has a tidy answer, and the part that was dropped is the part the OP actually asked about.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
One concrete data point for the thread. 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.
mike.trainer_LA said:The question has been narrowed to the version that has a tidy answer, and the part that was dropped is the part the OP actually asked about.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. 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.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsOne thing that is still open after BiostatsBrad’s answer:
Was that from a primary source or from a summary of one?
OP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.
Late follow-up. I did not do what was suggested, I did something adjacent, and it worked; posting the difference in case it matters to somebody.