Asked to pay by a method with no recourse, by a supplier I had used twice before without being asked, which is what made me stop.
So the question, as narrowly as I can put it: how people are thinking about the trade-off between reversibility and privacy, because you cannot have both.
I have searched first, so if this is covered somewhere point me at it and I will read it.
Short answer first, then the reasoning. 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.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.
pete_manc_UK 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.
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.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View Resultsmike_mealprep said:Asked to pay by a method with no recourse, by a supplier I had used twice before without being asked, which is what made me stop.
Mine went the same way, slower. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.
Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. 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.