hank_denver said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
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. 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.
Dr.AddMedPHL 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.
This matches mine closely enough to be worth saying so out loud. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsDr.AddMedPHL 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.
Coming at Dr.AddMedPHL’s question from a different direction. 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.
One concrete data point for the thread. Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a trend.