Dr.Martinez said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
This matches mine closely enough to be worth saying so out loud. Nothing to add that would improve it.
josh_phd_bmore said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
Coming at josh_phd_bmore’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.
The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. One practical note: write down what you did and when, before you need it. Reconstructing a timeline from memory three months later is how people end up unable to answer the one question that would have resolved it.
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 StandardsA narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
How people separated a drug effect from the ordinary consequences of a large deficit and disrupted sleep, because I cannot?
Moderator note: leaving this open. It is being argued well and the disagreement is the useful part. Thread quality here is what the rules are for. Keep it up.