stefan_berlin said:Worth stating the units and the reference range whenever you post a number here.
No disagreement, though the timescale matters more than the mechanism here. Most of what looks like a difference in kind turns out to be a difference in how long somebody waited.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
stefan_berlin said:Worth stating the units and the reference range whenever you post a number here.
Genuinely useful, thank you. I had the facts and not the framework. Sending this to two other people who asked me the same thing last week.
Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the correction. That is slower than asserting, and it is the only version that survives being wrong.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsDr.NephBHM_UK said:Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the…
Second this.
Dr.NephBHM_UK said:Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the…
Coming at Dr.NephBHM_UK’s question from a different direction. 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.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.