PeptideSynthNJ said:Reporting back with a partial result, because a partial result is still better than silence.
Adding a me-too, because a thread of one person's experience is not much use.
PeptideSynthNJ said:Reporting back with a partial result, because a partial result is still better than silence.
Coming at PeptideSynthNJ’s question from a different direction. 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.
The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. Worth stating the units and the reference range whenever you post a number here. A large fraction of the apparent disagreement in these threads is two people using different units and both being right.
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:
Did your prescriber agree with that reading, and if not what was their objection?
VendorMark said:Worth stating the units and the reference range whenever you post a number here.
I read this differently from VendorMark, on substance rather than tone. Pushing back on the consensus forming here. Consistency is not the same as correctness, and a board that agrees with itself quickly is usually agreeing with the first person who sounded certain.