Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. 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.
Following on from roxy_nash — and this may be the naive question:
How to read a result like this without either dismissing it or over-reading it, since the summaries all read like press releases?
raj_cambridge said:If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself.
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. Pushing back on the anecdote-stacking. Twenty people reporting the same thing is twenty samples from the same self-selected pool, not twenty independent confirmations.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference Standardsraj_cambridge said:If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself.
That holds where the measurement is reliable. Where it is noisy — and a lot of what gets tracked here is noisy — the same reasoning produces confident nonsense.
Happy to go further on any of that.
raj_cambridge said:If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself.
That reframing is the part I needed. Printing the relevant bit and taking it with me.