EndoResFellow said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. 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.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. Worth stating the units and the reference range whenever you post a number here. A large fraction of the apparent disagreement in these threads is two people using different units and both being right.
A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
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 ResultsOP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.
Update — I was wrong in the opening post, specifically about the direction. Correcting it here rather than editing it away.
Dr.PathRoch said:Worth stating the units and the reference range whenever you post a number here.
That is right, and it stops being right at the edges. The general case is well behaved; the interesting cases in this thread are all at the boundary where the general case breaks.