Dr.AddMedPHL said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
That is right, and it stops being right at the edges. The general case is well behaved; the interesting cases in this thread are all at the boundary where the general case breaks.
Dr.AddMedPHL said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
That reframing is the part I needed. Adding it to my notes with a link back to this thread.
Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. 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.
Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsLipidDoc_ATL said:The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked.
This matches mine closely enough to be worth saying so out loud. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.
LipidDoc_ATL said:The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked.
Coming at LipidDoc_ATL’s question from a different direction. Start from the measurement rather than the conclusion. Almost every disagreement here turns out to be two people measuring different things and comparing the numbers anyway.