Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. Take it one variable at a time. Almost every unanswerable question in these threads is unanswerable because three things changed in the same fortnight, and no amount of subsequent argument can untangle them after the fact.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. 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.
Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.
andrew_nyc said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
Same experience, arrived at from the opposite direction. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View Resultsandrew_nyc said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either. Those three things can all be true at once, and most arguments here are two people holding different parts of that.
Happy to go further on any of that.