Dr.NateNeph said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked. Narrow it and it becomes tractable; leave it broad and the thread will produce nine confident and incompatible replies.
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.
Happy to go further on any of that.
One thing that is still open after Dr.NateNeph’s answer:
Did your prescriber agree with that reading, and if not what was their objection?
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsPharmacoVig_BOS said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. The counter-case has not been addressed. Somebody upthread described the situation that does not fit, and the thread moved on rather than engaging with it, which is the failure mode this board is supposed to avoid.
PharmacoVig_BOS said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
True, and it depends on a baseline nobody has stated. Without knowing where someone started, the same number can be an excellent result or a disappointing one.