raj_cambridge 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…
Correct as far as it goes. The part it does not cover is what to do when the honest answer is "not enough data", which is more often than anyone likes.
raj_cambridge 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. Printing the relevant bit and taking it with me.
From 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.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View Resultsjulia.endo said:The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions.
Same pattern here, and in the same order. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.
julia.endo said:The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not. That is answerable; arguing about which sounds more plausible is not.