bri_stats said:Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason.
I read this differently from bri_stats, on substance rather than tone. Pushing back on the consensus forming here. Consistency is not the same as correctness, and a board that agrees with itself quickly is usually agreeing with the first person who sounded certain.
bri_stats said:Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason.
Agreed, and the size of the effect matters as much as its existence. Something real and small gets treated here as though it were real and decisive.
bri_stats said:Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason.
Thank you — that is the clearest version of this I have read, and I have read a lot of them. I will report back once I have actually tried it.
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 BiochemFrom 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.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
VanRx_Mike 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.
Mine went the same way, slower. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.