One thing that is still open after SarahChen_PharmD’s answer:
Was that from a primary source or from a summary of one?
One thing that is still open after SarahChen_PharmD’s answer:
Was that from a primary source or from a summary of one?
steph_laguna said: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.
Careful with the causal language. Two things moving together in a period when five things changed is not a mechanism, and stating it as one makes the thread less useful to somebody reading it later.
steph_laguna said: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.
No disagreement, though the timescale matters more than the mechanism here. Most of what looks like a difference in kind turns out to be a difference in how long somebody waited.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View Resultssteph_laguna said: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.
Saving this. It is the first explanation that did not require me to already understand it. Printing the relevant bit and taking it with me.
Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. 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.