Dr.PulmRoch said: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…
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. 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.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
Dr.PulmRoch said: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…
That holds where the measurement is reliable. Where it is noisy — and a lot of what gets tracked here is noisy — the same reasoning produces confident nonsense.
Dr.PulmRoch said: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…
This is exactly what I could not find anywhere else. Sending this to two other people who asked me the same thing last week.
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
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. The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions. Agreeing that something happens says nothing about whether it happens enough to act on.
OP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.
Closing the loop. The answer turned out to depend on the detail I had left out of the opening post, which is a lesson about how to ask rather than about the subject.