Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it. The narrow version usually has an answer; the broad version usually does not, and answering the broad one is how a thread stops being useful.
Dr.SleepRoch said:Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.
Can confirm. Same sequence, different timescale. Posting only so the count is not one.
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
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. 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.
One thing that is still open after Dr.SleepRoch’s answer:
How would you tell the difference between that and the alternative explanation?