anna.melb_AU 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.
Can confirm. Same sequence, different timescale. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.
anna.melb_AU 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.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person. Both are real; they answer different questions and get quoted as if they were the same one.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.
One concrete data point for the thread. 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.
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsOne thing that is still open after anna.melb_AU’s answer:
Did your prescriber agree with that reading, and if not what was their objection?
DanielChem_CHI said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
I read this differently from DanielChem_CHI, on substance rather than tone. Filing an objection on the n=1 problem. Personal experience is genuine evidence about one person and very weak evidence about anybody else, and this thread keeps promoting the first into the second.