DataDave said:Resolved, and the thing that resolved it was the least interesting suggestion in the thread.
I read this differently from DataDave, on substance rather than tone. Pushing back on the anecdote-stacking. Twenty people reporting the same thing is twenty samples from the same self-selected pool, not twenty independent confirmations.
DataDave said:Resolved, and the thing that resolved it was the least interesting suggestion in the thread.
Agreed on the substance. I would put less weight on the timescale, because two months of anything is not enough to distinguish a trend from a wobble.
Happy to go further on any of that.
DataDave said:Resolved, and the thing that resolved it was the least interesting suggestion in the thread.
That reframing is the part I needed. Taking it to my next appointment.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsClinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. 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.
Happy to go further on any of that.
Dr.EM_Chicago said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
Adding a me-too, because a thread of one person's experience is not much use. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.