quinn_sf said:The boring version of this is the one that works, and the boring version is: measure a baseline, change one variable, wait, measure again under the…
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. Filing an objection on the n=1 problem. Personal experience is genuine evidence about one person and very weak evidence about anybody else, and this thread keeps promoting the first into the second.
quinn_sf said:The boring version of this is the one that works, and the boring version is: measure a baseline, change one variable, wait, measure again under the…
Correct, and worth adding that it is reversible. Nothing being described here is a one-way door, which changes how cautious it is reasonable to be.
quinn_sf said:The boring version of this is the one that works, and the boring version is: measure a baseline, change one variable, wait, measure again under the…
Thank you for spelling out the reasoning rather than just the conclusion. Printing the relevant bit and taking it with me.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsAdding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions. Agreeing that something happens says nothing about whether it happens enough to act on.
pete_nash said:The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions.
Same experience, arrived at from the opposite direction. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.