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.
Happy to go further on any of that.
PedsEndoPhilly said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
Can confirm. Same sequence, different timescale.
PedsEndoPhilly said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
Coming at PedsEndoPhilly’s question from a different direction. The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked. Narrow it and it becomes tractable; leave it broad and the thread will produce nine confident and incompatible replies.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsThe 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.
Following on from PedsEndoPhilly — and this may be the naive question:
What did you change at the same time, and can you separate the two now?