laura_annarbor said:Start from the measurement rather than the conclusion.
I read this differently. The confidence in this thread is running ahead of the evidence, and I would rather the uncertainty were stated than smoothed over because it is unsatisfying.
laura_annarbor said:Start from the measurement rather than the conclusion.
No disagreement, though the timescale matters more than the mechanism here. Most of what looks like a difference in kind turns out to be a difference in how long somebody waited.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
laura_annarbor said:Start from the measurement rather than the conclusion.
That reframing is the part I needed.
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 BiochemClinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. 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.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
sarah_TO 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.
This is my experience too, for whatever a second data point is worth.