chris_chi24 said:Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the…
That reframing is the part I needed. I will report back once I have actually tried it.
Adding 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.
EndoResFellow said:Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.
Pushing back on EndoResFellow here. The objection nobody has made: this only works if the measurement is doing what we assume it is doing, and that assumption has not been tested here.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsAdding the numbers, since they settle part of this. If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself. Four weeks is the usual minimum for anything pharmacological on this board, and two weeks of data has told you almost nothing.
Moderator note: a post naming a supplier has been edited. Discuss suppliers in the review sections, not here. Tagging this one for the weekly digest.