traveltech_sara said:The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not. That is answerable; arguing about which sounds more plausible is not.
Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way. Most of the apparent contradictions in these threads dissolve at that step.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.
Following on from traveltech_sara — and this may be the naive question:
Did your prescriber agree with that reading, and if not what was their objection?
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View Resultsstefan_berlin said:If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way.
Pushing back on stefan_berlin here. The objection nobody has made: this only works if the measurement is doing what we assume it is doing, and that assumption has not been tested here.
stefan_berlin said:If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way.
Fair, and it stops being fair at the extremes. The middle of the range is well understood; the ends are where the honest answer is that nobody knows.