Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. It helps to ask what evidence would change your mind before you look at any. If nothing would, the discussion is not about evidence, and it is better to say so early than to spend nine posts discovering it.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person. Both are real; they answer different questions and get quoted as if they were the same one.
newstart_MO said:The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person.
This matches mine closely enough to be worth saying so out loud. Nothing to add that would improve it.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference Standardsnewstart_MO said:The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false. If nothing would look different, it is not a claim about the world and no amount of discussion will settle it.
Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.