lisa_labSD said:If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way.
That reframing is the part I needed. Sending this to two other people who asked me the same thing last week.
Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not. That is answerable; arguing about which sounds more plausible is not.
newstart_MO said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
Adding a me-too, because a thread of one person's experience is not much use.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference Standardsnewstart_MO said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions. Agreeing that something happens says nothing about whether it happens enough to act on.
Adding 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.