One thing that is still open after NurseLeah_Nash’s answer:
Did your prescriber agree with that reading, and if not what was their objection?
OP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.
Resolved, and the thing that resolved it was the least interesting suggestion in the thread. Writing that down for the next person who wants the interesting answer.
PeptideSynthNJ said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
Agreed on the substance. I would put less weight on the timescale, because two months of anything is not enough to distinguish a trend from a wobble.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsPeptideSynthNJ said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
Thank you — that is the clearest version of this I have read, and I have read a lot of them. Sending this to two other people who asked me the same thing last week.
Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. It helps to say which part of this you are uncertain about. A precise question gets a precise answer; a general one gets everybody’s favourite anecdote.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.