VanRx_Mike said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
Correct as far as it goes. The part it does not cover is what to do when the honest answer is "not enough data", which is more often than anyone likes.
Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.
kate.chem said:Agreed, with a caveat about community reputation: it is a lagging indicator.
Thank you for spelling out the reasoning rather than just the conclusion.
VanRx_Mike said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
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.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsAdding the numbers, since they settle part of this. Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a trend.