JessicaM_2024 said:Yes, and the corollary is less popular: if the reasoning holds, it also holds where it produces an answer we do not like.
Can confirm. Same sequence, different timescale. Nothing to add that would improve it.
JessicaM_2024 said:Yes, and the corollary is less popular: if the reasoning holds, it also holds where it produces an answer we do not like.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions. Agreeing that something happens says nothing about whether it happens enough to act on.
The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason. In three months the reason is what you will have forgotten, and the reason is what makes the record worth having.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsA narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
Did your prescriber agree with that reading, and if not what was their objection?
FDA_TrackerJim said:Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason.
Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. Filing an objection on the n=1 problem. Personal experience is genuine evidence about one person and very weak evidence about anybody else, and this thread keeps promoting the first into the second.