Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. There is a difference between no evidence and evidence of no effect, and this subject is one where the two get swapped freely in both directions.
LipidDoc_ATL said:There is a difference between no evidence and evidence of no effect, and this subject is one where the two get swapped freely in both directions.
Mine went the same way, slower. Nothing to add that would improve it.
LipidDoc_ATL said:There is a difference between no evidence and evidence of no effect, and this subject is one where the two get swapped freely in both directions.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked. Narrow it and it becomes tractable; leave it broad and the thread will produce nine confident and incompatible replies.
Trusted third-party HPLC & mass spectrometry analysis. Verify peptide purity with the lab the community relies on. Independent. Accurate. Transparent.
Verify Your PeptidesEst. 1998. The synthesis house behind the vials you send for testing. ISO 9001 and cGMP certified, 1,500+ staff, batch-specific COA with every order.
Browse GL BiochemOne concrete data point for the thread. The boring version of this is the one that works, and the boring version is: measure a baseline, change one variable, wait, measure again under the same conditions. Nobody wants that answer and it is still the answer.
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?