Following on from Dr.PainCLE — and this may be the naive question:
What would you measure differently if you were starting again?
Dr.PulmRoch 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.
Dr.PulmRoch said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
No disagreement, though it depends on where somebody is starting from, and this thread has been assuming a starting point nobody stated.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsDr.PulmRoch said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
Genuinely useful, thank you. I had the facts and not the framework.
Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. Start from the measurement rather than the conclusion. Almost every disagreement here turns out to be two people measuring different things and comparing the numbers anyway.