B12Beth said:Update: approved on the third attempt after a peer-to-peer.
This matches mine closely enough to be worth saying so out loud. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.
B12Beth said:Update: approved on the third attempt after a peer-to-peer.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. It helps to ask what evidence would change your mind before you look at any. If nothing would, the discussion is not about evidence, and it is better to say so early than to spend nine posts discovering it.
Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.
The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look. It is a small discipline and it changes what you notice.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsFollowing on from B12Beth — and this may be the naive question:
Did your prescriber agree with that reading, and if not what was their objection?
Dr.GutHealth said:Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.
Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. Filing an objection on the n=1 problem. Personal experience is genuine evidence about one person and very weak evidence about anybody else, and this thread keeps promoting the first into the second.
Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.