From the other side of the consultation, briefly. 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.
LibrarianMeg said:The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person.
Same pattern here, and in the same order. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.
LibrarianMeg said:The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person.
Coming at LibrarianMeg’s question from a different direction. 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.
Trusted third-party HPLC & mass spectrometry analysis. Verify peptide purity with the lab the community relies on. Independent. Accurate. Transparent.
Verify Your PeptidesEst. 1998. The synthesis house behind the vials you send for testing. ISO 9001 and cGMP certified, 1,500+ staff, batch-specific COA with every order.
Browse GL BiochemThe figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason. In three months the reason is what you will have forgotten, and the reason is what makes the record worth having.
One thing that is still open after LibrarianMeg’s answer:
What the dose-response curve actually looks like above 1.7mg, because the trial means hide how few people account for the extra loss?