TrialTracker_MD said:Agreed, and the size of the effect matters as much as its existence.
Adding a me-too, because a thread of one person's experience is not much use.
TrialTracker_MD said:Agreed, and the size of the effect matters as much as its existence.
Coming at TrialTracker_MD’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.
Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.
One concrete data point for the thread. One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number. A figure without its method cannot be checked, and an unchecked figure is how this community accumulates folklore.
Janoshik Analytical — Independent Testing
Trusted third-party HPLC & mass spectrometry analysis. Verify peptide purity with the lab the community relies on. Independent. Accurate. Transparent.
Verify Your PeptidesGL Biochem (Shanghai) Ltd. — Direct Manufacturer
Est. 1998. The synthesis house behind the vials you send for testing. ISO 9001 and cGMP certified, 1,500+ staff, batch-specific COA with every order.
Browse GL BiochemFollowing on from TrialTracker_MD — and this may be the naive question:
How long did you give it before you decided it was working?
dan_philly said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
I read this differently from dan_philly, on substance rather than tone. The objection nobody has made: this only works if the measurement is doing what we assume it is doing, and that assumption has not been tested here.