quinn_sf said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
Careful with the causal language. Two things moving together in a period when five things changed is not a mechanism, and stating it as one makes the thread less useful to somebody reading it later.
quinn_sf said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
Agreeing with quinn_sf, and the qualification matters more than the agreement. Yes, and the corollary is less popular: if the reasoning holds, it also holds where it produces an answer we do not like.
quinn_sf said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
Thank you — that is the clearest version of this I have read, and I have read a lot of them. Printing the relevant bit and taking it with me.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsAdding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. 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.
OP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.
Update: approved on the third attempt after a peer-to-peer. Nothing about my case changed; only who was doing the talking.