Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. 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.
Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.
LipidDoc_ATL said:The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person.
Mine went the same way, slower. Nothing to add that would improve it.
LipidDoc_ATL 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 LipidDoc_ATL’s question from a different direction. There is a difference between no evidence and evidence of no effect, and this subject is one where the two get swapped freely in both directions.
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 BiochemAdding the numbers, since they settle part of this. One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number. A figure without its method cannot be checked, and an unchecked figure is how this community accumulates folklore.
Worth separating that from vendor vetting, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.
One thing that is still open after LipidDoc_ATL’s answer:
How would you tell the difference between that and the alternative explanation?