WendyG_ATL said:Agreed, and the size of the effect matters as much as its existence.
Second this. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.
WendyG_ATL said:Agreed, and the size of the effect matters as much as its existence.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the correction. That is slower than asserting, and it is the only version that survives being wrong.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
One concrete data point for the thread. If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself. Four weeks is the usual minimum for anything pharmacological on this board, and two weeks of data has told you almost nothing.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsFollowing on from WendyG_ATL — and this may be the naive question:
How would you tell the difference between that and the alternative explanation?
Dr.NateNeph said:If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself.
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.