A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
Did your prescriber agree with that reading, and if not what was their objection?
PharmacoVig_BOS said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. Not convinced. The evidence being cited is consistent with the conclusion and also consistent with two other conclusions nobody has ruled out.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
PharmacoVig_BOS said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
No disagreement, though it depends on where somebody is starting from, and this thread has been assuming a starting point nobody stated.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsPharmacoVig_BOS said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
Thank you — that is the clearest version of this I have read, and I have read a lot of them.
OP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.
Closing this out. What actually changed my mind was the point about waiting for a trend instead of reading a single measurement, which is embarrassing in hindsight and worth saying anyway.