TrialNerd_Beth said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the correction. That is slower than asserting, and it is the only version that survives being wrong.
The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath. An edited-away mistake is invisible to the next person who makes it.
Worth separating that from liver and MASH, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.
One thing that is still open after TrialNerd_Beth’s answer:
How much of the between-person variation is pharmacokinetic and how much is just adherence measured badly?
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference Standardsdan_philly said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
Pushing back on dan_philly here. I would resist the confidence. Half of what this board was certain about two years ago has since been quietly dropped, and nobody went back to correct the threads.
dan_philly said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
Agreed on the substance. I would put less weight on the timescale, because two months of anything is not enough to distinguish a trend from a wobble.