Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. 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.
From the other side of the consultation, briefly. Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it. The narrow version usually has an answer; the broad version usually does not, and answering the broad one is how a thread stops being useful.
Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.
Dr.AddMedPHL said:Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.
This matches mine closely enough to be worth saying so out loud.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsDr.AddMedPHL said:Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either. Those three things can all be true at once, and most arguments here are two people holding different parts of that.
Moderator note: reminder that nothing in this thread is medical advice, and that clinical claims need a source. Report rather than reply if it drifts again.