Dr.PathRoch said:Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.
Coming at Dr.PathRoch’s question from a different direction. The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions. Agreeing that something happens says nothing about whether it happens enough to act on.
One concrete data point for the thread. 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 Dr.PathRoch’s answer:
How long did you give it before you decided it was working?
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsDataDave 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…
I read this differently from DataDave, on substance rather than tone. I think the framing smuggles in the conclusion. Ask it the other way round and the obvious answer reverses, which usually means the question is doing the work.
DataDave 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…
That holds where the measurement is reliable. Where it is noisy — and a lot of what gets tracked here is noisy — the same reasoning produces confident nonsense.
Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.