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.
What I am after is how people are thinking about the trade-off between reversibility and privacy, because you cannot have both.
Tell me what I have not thought of.
Answering the narrow version, because the broad one does not have a single answer. 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.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
Dr.MetabolicMD said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
Agreeing with Dr.MetabolicMD, and the qualification matters more than the agreement. Yes, and the corollary is less popular: if the reasoning holds, it also holds where it produces an answer we do not like.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference Standardspete_RVA 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 is my experience too, for whatever a second data point is worth. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.
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.