Has anyone dealt with anti-thrombotic properties of glp-1 receptor activation?

claudia_zurich 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 claudia_zurich’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.

The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. 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.

Following on from claudia_zurich — and this may be the naive question:

How would you tell the difference between that and the alternative explanation?

TrialTracker_MD said:

Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.

Worth saying that the confident version of this is more useful to the person writing it than to the person reading it.

TrialTracker_MD said:

Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.

Agreed, with the usual condition: that holds for the average and this board is a collection of individuals. A population claim and a personal prediction are different things and get quoted interchangeably.