HPLC_Greg said:Update since I posted: I held at 1.7mg for a further twelve weeks and lost another 4kg slowly, which settles it for me.
Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. 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.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
HPLC_Greg said:Update since I posted: I held at 1.7mg for a further twelve weeks and lost another 4kg slowly, which settles it for me.
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.
HPLC_Greg said:Update since I posted: I held at 1.7mg for a further twelve weeks and lost another 4kg slowly, which settles it for me.
Thank you — that is the clearest version of this I have read, and I have read a lot of them. Adding it to my notes with a link back to this thread.
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 BiochemAdding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. 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.
GenomicsKate said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
This is my experience too, for whatever a second data point is worth. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.