TrialTracker_MD said:Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.
This is my experience too, for whatever a second data point is worth. Nothing to add that would improve it.
Following on from sarah.morrison — and this may be the naive question:
Was that from a primary source or from a summary of one?
BiostatsBrad said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. 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.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsBiostatsBrad said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
No disagreement, though the timescale matters more than the mechanism here. Most of what looks like a difference in kind turns out to be a difference in how long somebody waited.