One thing that is still open after Dr.RenalNash’s answer:
What would you measure differently if you were starting again?
BiostatsBrad said:The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked.
I read this differently from BiostatsBrad, on substance rather than tone. This treats a plausible mechanism as a demonstrated one. Plausible is where you start looking, not where you stop.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
BiostatsBrad said:The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked.
That is right for the common case. Whether it is right for the case being asked about depends on a detail that has not been given.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsBiostatsBrad said:The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked.
This is exactly what I could not find anywhere else. I will report back once I have actually tried it.
Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. Order of operations matters more than any single choice here: establish a baseline, change one thing, wait long enough for it to express itself, then measure again under the same conditions.