One thing that is still open after Dr.PathRoch’s answer:
Did your prescriber agree with that reading, and if not what was their objection?
One thing that is still open after Dr.PathRoch’s answer:
Did your prescriber agree with that reading, and if not what was their objection?
MarkLI_maint said:Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a…
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. The counter-case has not been addressed. Somebody upthread described the situation that does not fit, and the thread moved on rather than engaging with it, which is the failure mode this board is supposed to avoid.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.
MarkLI_maint said:Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a…
Correct as far as it goes. The part it does not cover is what to do when the honest answer is "not enough data", which is more often than anyone likes.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsMarkLI_maint said:Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a…
This is exactly what I could not find anywhere else. Sending this to two other people who asked me the same thing last week.
From the other side of the consultation, briefly. Take it one variable at a time. Almost every unanswerable question in these threads is unanswerable because three things changed in the same fortnight, and no amount of subsequent argument can untangle them after the fact.