One thing that is still open after newstart_MO’s answer:
What did you change at the same time, and can you separate the two now?
PharmHunterJen said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
I read this differently from PharmHunterJen, on substance rather than tone. Not convinced. The evidence being cited is consistent with the conclusion and also consistent with two other conclusions nobody has ruled out.
PharmHunterJen said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
That is right, and it stops being right at the edges. The general case is well behaved; the interesting cases in this thread are all at the boundary where the general case breaks.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsPharmHunterJen said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
This is exactly what I could not find anywhere else. I will report back once I have actually tried it.
From the other side of the consultation, briefly. Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the correction. That is slower than asserting, and it is the only version that survives being wrong.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.