Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. 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.
Happy to go further on any of that.
Following on from Dr.EM_Chicago — and this may be the naive question:
Did your prescriber agree with that reading, and if not what was their objection?
Dr.NephBHM_UK said:Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.
I do not accept the framing. The question has been narrowed to the version that has a tidy answer, and the part that was dropped is the part the OP actually asked about.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsDr.NephBHM_UK said:Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.
Right, and the exception is worth naming rather than left implied, because the exception is where people get into trouble.