NauseaFreeNow said:Resolved, and the thing that resolved it was the least interesting suggestion in the thread.
Pushing back on NauseaFreeNow here. Pushing back on the anecdote-stacking. Twenty people reporting the same thing is twenty samples from the same self-selected pool, not twenty independent confirmations.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
NauseaFreeNow said:Resolved, and the thing that resolved it was the least interesting suggestion in the thread.
Agreed on the substance. I would put less weight on the timescale, because two months of anything is not enough to distinguish a trend from a wobble.
NauseaFreeNow said:Resolved, and the thing that resolved it was the least interesting suggestion in the thread.
This answered a question I did not know how to ask. Adding it to my notes with a link back to this thread.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsFrom the other side of the consultation, briefly. It helps to say which part of this you are uncertain about. A precise question gets a precise answer; a general one gets everybody’s favourite anecdote.
Dr.PulmRoch said:It helps to say which part of this you are uncertain about.
This matches mine closely enough to be worth saying so out loud. Nothing to add that would improve it.