Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person. Both are real; they answer different questions and get quoted as if they were the same one.
DeniseRN_TPA said:The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person.
This is my experience too, for whatever a second data point is worth. Posting only so the count is not one.
DeniseRN_TPA said:The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person.
Coming at DeniseRN_TPA’s question from a different direction. 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.
Trusted third-party HPLC & mass spectrometry analysis. Verify peptide purity with the lab the community relies on. Independent. Accurate. Transparent.
Verify Your PeptidesEst. 1998. The synthesis house behind the vials you send for testing. ISO 9001 and cGMP certified, 1,500+ staff, batch-specific COA with every order.
Browse GL BiochemOne concrete data point for the thread. For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine. Half the figures circulating in this community trace back to a secondary summary that dropped a qualifier.
One thing that is still open after DeniseRN_TPA’s answer:
How would you tell the difference between that and the alternative explanation?