anders_CPH said:Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a…
This is exactly what I could not find anywhere else. I will report back once I have actually tried it.
OP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.
Reporting back for the archive rather than for the thread: I did the narrow version of what was suggested, gave it the full interval, and it settled. Posting it because threads without a follow-up are half a thread.
Dr.RheumBOS said:Reporting back for the archive rather than for the thread: I did the narrow version of what was suggested, gave it the full interval, and it settled.
Second this.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsDr.RheumBOS said:Reporting back for the archive rather than for the thread: I did the narrow version of what was suggested, gave it the full interval, and it settled.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. It helps to ask what evidence would change your mind before you look at any. If nothing would, the discussion is not about evidence, and it is better to say so early than to spend nine posts discovering it.
Found this through search years later and it is still the best discussion of the question, so adding one thing. One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number. A figure without its method cannot be checked, and an unchecked figure is how this community accumulates folklore.