stefan_berlin said:Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.
That holds where the measurement is reliable. Where it is noisy — and a lot of what gets tracked here is noisy — the same reasoning produces confident nonsense.
stefan_berlin said:Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.
Genuinely useful, thank you. I had the facts and not the framework. Taking it to my next appointment.
Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions. Agreeing that something happens says nothing about whether it happens enough to act on.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase 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 Biochemanna.melb_AU said:The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions.
This matches mine closely enough to be worth saying so out loud.
anna.melb_AU said:The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. Most of what circulates confidently in this community traces back to one summary of one study, and the qualifier was dropped somewhere in the third retelling.