Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions. Agreeing that something happens says nothing about whether it happens enough to act on.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.
Dr.PathRoch said:The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions.
Adding a me-too, because a thread of one person's experience is not much use. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.
Dr.PathRoch said:The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not. That is answerable; arguing about which sounds more plausible is not.
Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsThe figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number. A figure without its method cannot be checked, and an unchecked figure is how this community accumulates folklore.
A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
What would you measure differently if you were starting again?