A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
What would you measure differently if you were starting again?
nancy_portland said:The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either.
Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. The objection nobody has made: this only works if the measurement is doing what we assume it is doing, and that assumption has not been tested here.
nancy_portland said:The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either.
True, with the qualification that this is a self-selected group. The people for whom it did not work post less, and that shapes everything we think we know.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View Resultsnancy_portland said:The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either.
Thank you for spelling out the reasoning rather than just the conclusion. Printing the relevant bit and taking it with me.
Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it. The narrow version usually has an answer; the broad version usually does not, and answering the broad one is how a thread stops being useful.