anders_CPH said:Worth stating the units and the reference range whenever you post a number here.
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. Pushing back on the consensus forming here. Consistency is not the same as correctness, and a board that agrees with itself quickly is usually agreeing with the first person who sounded certain.
anders_CPH said:Worth stating the units and the reference range whenever you post a number here.
Correct, and worth adding that it is reversible. Nothing being described here is a one-way door, which changes how cautious it is reasonable to be.
anders_CPH said:Worth stating the units and the reference range whenever you post a number here.
This is exactly what I could not find anywhere else. Sending this to two other people who asked me the same thing last week.
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsClinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either. Those three things can all be true at once, and most arguments here are two people holding different parts of that.
jim_asheville said:The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either.
Second this. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.