Dr.RenalNash said:The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either.
Coming at Dr.RenalNash’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.
One concrete data point for the thread. 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.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.
A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
What did you change at the same time, and can you separate the two now?
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsPharmacoVig_BOS said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
I read this differently from PharmacoVig_BOS, 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.
Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.
Reporting back.
For the archive: it took about six weeks rather than the two I expected, and the difference between those two numbers was the whole of my problem.