quinn_sf said:Worth stating the units and the reference range whenever you post a number here.
Thank you — that is the clearest version of this I have read, and I have read a lot of them. Sending this to two other people who asked me the same thing last week.
Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. 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.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.
LibrarianMeg said:Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.
Same pattern here, and in the same order. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsLibrarianMeg said:Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated. Those two sets overlap less than the confident tone of most write-ups suggests, and the second set is where nearly all the disagreement on this board comes from.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.
Reporting back.
Reporting back for the archive rather than for the thread: I did the narrow version of what was suggested, gave it the full interval, and it settled. Posting it because threads without a follow-up are half a thread.