raj_cambridge said:Follow-up: I read the paper rather than the summary and the qualifier I was missing was in the second paragraph of the results.
Second this.
raj_cambridge said:Follow-up: I read the paper rather than the summary and the qualifier I was missing was in the second paragraph of the results.
Coming at raj_cambridge’s question from a different direction. 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.
Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look. It is a small discipline and it changes what you notice.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsOne thing that is still open after raj_cambridge’s answer:
How long did you give it before you decided it was working?
hank_denver said:Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.
Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. Not convinced. The evidence being cited is consistent with the conclusion and also consistent with two other conclusions nobody has ruled out.