Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked. Narrow it and it becomes tractable; leave it broad and the thread will produce nine confident and incompatible replies.
claudia_zurich said:The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked.
Adding a me-too, because a thread of one person's experience is not much use. Posting only so the count is not one.
claudia_zurich said:The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. 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.
Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsOne concrete data point for the thread. 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.
One thing that is still open after claudia_zurich’s answer:
How would you tell the difference between that and the alternative explanation?