TrialNerd_Beth said:BethLabQueen said: ...regarding the trial evidence...
Agreed, and the size of the effect matters as much as its existence. Something real and small gets treated here as though it were real and decisive.
mike_mod said:Forest plot interpretation for the the trial evidence meta-analysis: when reading the pooled estimate, pay attention to: Point estimate (HR/RR/OR) —…
This answered a question I did not know how to ask. Taking it to my next appointment.
TrialNerd_Beth said:BethLabQueen said: ...regarding the trial evidence...
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. 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.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsThe figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. The boring version of this is the one that works, and the boring version is: measure a baseline, change one variable, wait, measure again under the same conditions. Nobody wants that answer and it is still the answer.
Moderator note: reminder that nothing in this thread is medical advice, and that clinical claims need a source. Tagging this one for the weekly digest.