paige_pharma said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
Mine went the same way, slower. Nothing to add that would improve it.
One thing that is still open after DataDave’s answer:
What would you measure differently if you were starting again?
TrialTracker_MD said:Worth stating the units and the reference range whenever you post a number here.
Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. Pushing back on the consensus forming here. Consistency is not the same as correctness, and a board that agrees with itself quickly is usually agreeing with the first person who sounded certain.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsTrialTracker_MD said:Worth stating the units and the reference range whenever you post a number here.
That is right for the common case. Whether it is right for the case being asked about depends on a detail that has not been given.
Moderator note: leaving this open. It is being argued well and the disagreement is the useful part. Thread quality here is what the rules are for. Keep it up.