claudia_zurich said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
Agreed, with the usual condition: that holds for the average and this board is a collection of individuals. A population claim and a personal prediction are different things and get quoted interchangeably.
claudia_zurich said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
Thank you for spelling out the reasoning rather than just the conclusion.
Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not. That is answerable; arguing about which sounds more plausible is not.
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 Biochempaige_pharma said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
Same experience, arrived at from the opposite direction.
paige_pharma said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. Order of operations matters more than any single choice here: establish a baseline, change one thing, wait long enough for it to express itself, then measure again under the same conditions.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.