pat_auckland said:There is a difference between no evidence and evidence of no effect, and this subject is one where the two get swapped freely in both directions.
True, with the qualification that this is a self-selected group. The people for whom it did not work post less, and that shapes everything we think we know.
NurseLeah_Nash said:Agreed, and the size of the effect matters as much as its existence.
Thank you — that is the clearest version of this I have read, and I have read a lot of them.
pat_auckland said:There is a difference between no evidence and evidence of no effect, and this subject is one where the two get swapped freely in both directions.
Pushing back on pat_auckland here. The counter-case has not been addressed. Somebody upthread described the situation that does not fit, and the thread moved on rather than engaging with it, which is the failure mode this board is supposed to avoid.
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. For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine. Half the figures circulating in this community trace back to a secondary summary that dropped a qualifier.
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.