A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
Did your prescriber agree with that reading, and if not what was their objection?
Dr.PainCLE said:Resolved, and the thing that resolved it was the least interesting suggestion in the thread.
Pushing back on Dr.PainCLE here. 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.
Dr.PainCLE said:Resolved, and the thing that resolved it was the least interesting suggestion in the thread.
No disagreement, though it depends on where somebody is starting from, and this thread has been assuming a starting point nobody stated.
Happy to go further on any of that.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsDr.PainCLE said:Resolved, and the thing that resolved it was the least interesting suggestion in the thread.
Saving this. It is the first explanation that did not require me to already understand it. Printing the relevant bit and taking it with me.
Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions. Agreeing that something happens says nothing about whether it happens enough to act on.