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.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.
SleepDoc_PDX said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
This matches mine closely enough to be worth saying so out loud.
SleepDoc_PDX 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. It helps to say which part of this you are uncertain about. A precise question gets a precise answer; a general one gets everybody’s favourite anecdote.
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 BiochemThe figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look. It is a small discipline and it changes what you notice.
One thing that is still open after SleepDoc_PDX’s answer:
How would you tell the difference between that and the alternative explanation?