FDA_TrackerJim said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
Agreeing with FDA_TrackerJim, and the qualification matters more than the agreement. Yes, and the corollary is less popular: if the reasoning holds, it also holds where it produces an answer we do not like.
FDA_TrackerJim said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
Saving this. It is the first explanation that did not require me to already understand it. Adding it to my notes with a link back to this thread.
From the other side of the consultation, briefly. There is a difference between no evidence and evidence of no effect, and this subject is one where the two get swapped freely in both directions.
Trusted third-party HPLC & mass spectrometry analysis. Verify peptide purity with the lab the community relies on. Independent. Accurate. Transparent.
Verify Your PeptidesEst. 1998. The synthesis house behind the vials you send for testing. ISO 9001 and cGMP certified, 1,500+ staff, batch-specific COA with every order.
Browse GL BiochemDr.BariatricHTX said:There is a difference between no evidence and evidence of no effect, and this subject is one where the two get swapped freely in both directions.
Same pattern here, and in the same order.
Dr.BariatricHTX said:There is a difference between no evidence and evidence of no effect, and this subject is one where the two get swapped freely in both directions.
Coming at Dr.BariatricHTX’s question from a different direction. 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.