TrialTracker_MD said:If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself.
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. I think the framing smuggles in the conclusion. Ask it the other way round and the obvious answer reverses, which usually means the question is doing the work.
TrialTracker_MD said:If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself.
That holds where the measurement is reliable. Where it is noisy — and a lot of what gets tracked here is noisy — the same reasoning produces confident nonsense.
TrialTracker_MD said:If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself.
This is exactly what I could not find anywhere else.
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 BiochemClinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. 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.
OP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.
Following up because I said I would. I changed one thing, left everything else alone, and waited the full interval before looking. It resolved, and I cannot prove which half of that did it.