claudia_zurich said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
This is my experience too, for whatever a second data point is worth. Nothing to add that would improve it.
Reporting back.
Update, and it is the boring outcome: nothing was wrong. The measurement I was reading had moved less than its own week-to-week variation, which somebody said upthread and I did not believe.
The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself. Four weeks is the usual minimum for anything pharmacological on this board, and two weeks of data has told you almost nothing.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsFollowing on from claudia_zurich — and this may be the naive question:
Did your prescriber agree with that reading, and if not what was their objection?
Dr.PulmRoch said:If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself.
I read this differently from Dr.PulmRoch, on substance rather than tone. This treats a plausible mechanism as a demonstrated one. Plausible is where you start looking, not where you stop.