A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
What did you change at the same time, and can you separate the two now?
BiostatsBrad 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. This treats a plausible mechanism as a demonstrated one. Plausible is where you start looking, not where you stop.
Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.
BiostatsBrad said:Worth stating the units and the reference range whenever you post a number here.
No disagreement, though the timescale matters more than the mechanism here. Most of what looks like a difference in kind turns out to be a difference in how long somebody waited.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsBiostatsBrad said:Worth stating the units and the reference range whenever you post a number here.
Saving this. It is the first explanation that did not require me to already understand it.
Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. 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.