From the other side of the consultation, briefly. Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the correction. That is slower than asserting, and it is the only version that survives being wrong.
PharmacoVig_BOS said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
Agreed, though "tolerable" needs defining. A dose you tolerate by eating almost nothing is not tolerated, it is being paid for somewhere else — usually in lean mass, sometimes in adherence three months later.
PharmacoVig_BOS said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
Thank you for spelling out the reasoning rather than just the conclusion. Printing the relevant bit and taking it with me.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsFrom the other side of the consultation, briefly. The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either. Those three things can all be true at once, and most arguments here are two people holding different parts of that.