One thing that is still open after Dr.PainCLE’s answer:
How would you tell the difference between that and the alternative explanation?
Dr.RaviCardio said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. I think the framing smuggles in the conclusion. Ask it the other way round and the obvious answer reverses, which usually means the question is doing the work.
Dr.RaviCardio said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
True, and it depends on a baseline nobody has stated. Without knowing where someone started, the same number can be an excellent result or a disappointing one.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsDr.RaviCardio said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
Genuinely useful, thank you. I had the facts and not the framework.
Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person. Both are real; they answer different questions and get quoted as if they were the same one.