Asked to pay by a method with no recourse, by a supplier I had used twice before without being asked, which is what made me stop.
The narrow version of the question is how people are thinking about the trade-off between reversibility and privacy, because you cannot have both.
Not looking for reassurance. Looking for the part I have got wrong.
This one has a reasonably settled answer, so here it is. 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.
COA_Karl said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
Agreed, and one caution: a single measurement is not a measurement. Anything that moves day to day needs a trend before it means anything at all.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsSaraMom3 said:Asked to pay by a method with no recourse, by a supplier I had used twice before without being asked, which is what made me stop.
This matches mine closely enough to be worth saying so out loud.
Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. Most of what circulates confidently in this community traces back to one summary of one study, and the qualifier was dropped somewhere in the third retelling.