JenPlateau said:Resolved, and the thing that resolved it was the least interesting suggestion in the thread.
This matches mine closely enough to be worth saying so out loud. Nothing to add that would improve it.
JenPlateau said:Resolved, and the thing that resolved it was the least interesting suggestion in the thread.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. Take it one variable at a time. Almost every unanswerable question in these threads is unanswerable because three things changed in the same fortnight, and no amount of subsequent argument can untangle them after the fact.
Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. 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.
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?
TrialTracker_MD said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
I read this differently from TrialTracker_MD, on substance rather than tone. 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.