Dr.Martinez said:Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.
Reprising the part of this that the last few posts have moved away from:
Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a trend.
This was answered several pages up and is worth repeating rather than re-litigating:
Most of what circulates confidently in this community traces back to one summary of one study, and the qualifier was dropped somewhere in the third retelling.
Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.
Reporting back.
Update, and it is the boring outcome: nothing was wrong. The measurement I was reading had moved less than its own week-to-week variation, which somebody said upthread and I did not believe.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsBethLabQueen said:Update, and it is the boring outcome: nothing was wrong.
I do not accept the framing. The question has been narrowed to the version that has a tidy answer, and the part that was dropped is the part the OP actually asked about.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.
BethLabQueen said:Update, and it is the boring outcome: nothing was wrong.
Agreed, and the size of the effect matters as much as its existence. Something real and small gets treated here as though it were real and decisive.