julia.endo said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. 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.
Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. 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 same conditions. Nobody wants that answer and it is still the answer.
One thing that is still open after julia.endo’s answer:
Did your prescriber agree with that reading, and if not what was their objection?
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View Resultsraj_cambridge 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…
Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. I would resist the confidence. Half of what this board was certain about two years ago has since been quietly dropped, and nobody went back to correct the threads.
raj_cambridge 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…
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.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.