Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false. If nothing would look different, it is not a claim about the world and no amount of discussion will settle it.
A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
What did you change at the same time, and can you separate the two now?
DeniseRN_TPA said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
Careful with the causal language. Two things moving together in a period when five things changed is not a mechanism, and stating it as one makes the thread less useful to somebody reading it later.
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsDeniseRN_TPA said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
Right, and the exception is worth naming rather than left implied, because the exception is where people get into trouble.
Moderator note: good thread. Keeping it here rather than moving it, because the question is general enough to be useful.