BethLabQueen said:One practical note: write down what you did and when, before you need it.
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. The counter-case has not been addressed. Somebody upthread described the situation that does not fit, and the thread moved on rather than engaging with it, which is the failure mode this board is supposed to avoid.
BethLabQueen said:One practical note: write down what you did and when, before you need it.
Agreed, and the size of the effect matters as much as its existence. Something real and small gets treated here as though it were real and decisive.
Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.
BethLabQueen said:One practical note: write down what you did and when, before you need it.
This is exactly what I could not find anywhere else. Taking it to my next appointment.
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. 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.
Dr.GastroMayo said:The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either.
Can confirm. Same sequence, different timescale. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.