VanRx_Mike 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. 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.
The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. 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.
One thing that is still open after VanRx_Mike’s answer:
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 Standardsjason_paloalto said:If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself.
Pushing back on jason_paloalto here. The objection nobody has made: this only works if the measurement is doing what we assume it is doing, and that assumption has not been tested here.
jason_paloalto said:If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself.
Correct as far as it goes. The part it does not cover is what to do when the honest answer is "not enough data", which is more often than anyone likes.