JenPlateau said:It helps to ask what evidence would change your mind before you look at any.
This is my experience too, for whatever a second data point is worth. Posting only so the count is not one.
JenPlateau said:It helps to ask what evidence would change your mind before you look at any.
Coming at JenPlateau’s question from a different direction. 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.
Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath. An edited-away mistake is invisible to the next person who makes it.
Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsFollowing on from JenPlateau — and this may be the naive question:
Did your prescriber agree with that reading, and if not what was their objection?
PharmacoVig_BOS said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
I read this differently from PharmacoVig_BOS, on substance rather than tone. Filing an objection on the n=1 problem. Personal experience is genuine evidence about one person and very weak evidence about anybody else, and this thread keeps promoting the first into the second.
Worth separating that from liver and MASH, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.