NurseAsh_DET said:The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false. If nothing would look different, it is not a claim about the world and no amount of discussion will settle it.
Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a trend.
Moderator note: leaving this open. It is being argued well and the disagreement is the useful part. Report rather than reply if it drifts again.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View Resultsanders_CPH said:Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a…
Worth saying that the confident version of this is more useful to the person writing it than to the person reading it.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
anders_CPH said:Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a…
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.