DoseLogDan said:Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.
I read this differently from DoseLogDan, on substance rather than tone. Filing an objection on the n=1 problem. Personal experience is genuine evidence about one person and very weak evidence about anybody else, and this thread keeps promoting the first into the second.
DoseLogDan said:Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.
That is right for the common case. Whether it is right for the case being asked about depends on a detail that has not been given.
Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.
DoseLogDan said:Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.
Genuinely useful, thank you. I had the facts and not the framework.
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsAdding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it. The narrow version usually has an answer; the broad version usually does not, and answering the broad one is how a thread stops being useful.
OP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.
Update: I got the sleep and the intake sorted before deciding it was the drug, and most of the flatness went with them. Not all of it, and I am watching the rest.