Dr.DermMIA said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions. Agreeing that something happens says nothing about whether it happens enough to act on.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.
Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way. Most of the apparent contradictions in these threads dissolve at that step.
One thing that is still open after Dr.DermMIA’s answer:
Was that from a primary source or from a summary of one?
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View Resultsjason_paloalto said:If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way.
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. I think the framing smuggles in the conclusion. Ask it the other way round and the obvious answer reverses, which usually means the question is doing the work.
jason_paloalto said:If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way.
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.