Following on from pat_auckland — and this may be the naive question:
Was that from a primary source or from a summary of one?
Following on from pat_auckland — and this may be the naive question:
Was that from a primary source or from a summary of one?
bri_stats said:Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.
I do not accept the framing. The question has been narrowed to the version that has a tidy answer, and the part that was dropped is the part the OP actually asked about.
Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.
bri_stats said:Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.
Right, and the exception is worth naming rather than left implied, because the exception is where people get into trouble.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsFound this through search years later and it is still the best discussion of the question, so adding one thing. 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.
Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked. Narrow it and it becomes tractable; leave it broad and the thread will produce nine confident and incompatible replies.