u/canada_coverage

Crossposting this to c/reconstitution because the people who need it are not reading this community.

Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.

Edit to your parent would help — the concentration you quoted assumes one scenario and you have written another above it.

This is an urgent-care question wearing a forum question's clothes. Please contact a clinician rather than waiting for replies.

Inter-lab variance on this kind of assay is routinely 1–2 points. Different column, different gradient, different integration.

Dead space in the needle hub holds a small but non-trivial volume. On low-volume draws that can be several units.

chromatogram or it did not happen

everything else in the vial drawer, identity

Removed a chain here. The rule is one line long and it is not negotiable.

Flair changed to match the content. Read the sidebar before posting next time and we are square.

Ireland here. Waited 18 months on a list, gave up, went private, and the total cost was roughly what I expected.

The thing nobody prepared me for was the quiet. Not the appetite, the quiet. The constant negotiation in my head about food just stopped.

This is an urgent-care question wearing a forum question's clothes.

Yes, exactly this, and it is the bit that took me 75 weeks to accept.

This is correct. Appeal letters work.

Retitled to remove editorialising. Put the evidence in the body.

two labs, two different baselines, two different purity numbers, both honest

This is the "correlation is mechanism" thing again. You changed three variables at once.

Small correction: the trial was 24 weeks, not 26. Does not change your point but people will quote it.

This is the "correlation is mechanism" thing again. You changed three variables at once.

chromatogram or it did not happen

Disagree. What you are describing is consistent with small molecule, not with what you concluded.