Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. 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.
Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.
Dr.PathRoch said:Start from the measurement rather than the conclusion.
Can confirm. Same sequence, different timescale.
Dr.PathRoch said:Start from the measurement rather than the conclusion.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false. If nothing would look different, it is not a claim about the world and no amount of discussion will settle it.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsAdding the numbers, since they settle part of this. Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a trend.
Following on from Dr.PathRoch — and this may be the naive question:
Was that from a primary source or from a summary of one?