mel_PDX said:Whether it is right for the case being asked about depends on a detail that has not been given.
This matches mine closely enough to be worth saying so out loud.
mel_PDX said:Whether it is right for the case being asked about depends on a detail that has not been given.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. Order of operations matters more than any single choice here: establish a baseline, change one thing, wait long enough for it to express itself, then measure again under the same conditions.
Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. 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.
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 StandardsOne thing that is still open after mel_PDX’s answer:
What would you measure differently if you were starting again?
Dr.PathRoch said:If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself.
Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. This treats a plausible mechanism as a demonstrated one. Plausible is where you start looking, not where you stop.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.