DanielChem_CHI said:Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.
That is right, and it stops being right at the edges. The general case is well behaved; the interesting cases in this thread are all at the boundary where the general case breaks.
DanielChem_CHI said:Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.
That reframing is the part I needed. Sending this to two other people who asked me the same thing last week.
Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions. Agreeing that something happens says nothing about whether it happens enough to act on.
Happy to go further on any of that.
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsPharmHunterJen said:The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions.
Can confirm. Same sequence, different timescale.
PharmHunterJen said:The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions.
Coming at PharmHunterJen’s question from a different direction. 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.