DoseLogDan said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
No disagreement, though it depends on where somebody is starting from, and this thread has been assuming a starting point nobody stated.
Happy to go further on any of that.
DoseLogDan said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
This is exactly what I could not find anywhere else. Printing the relevant bit and taking it with me.
Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. 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.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsTinaHashiRN said:The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either.
Second this. Nothing to add that would improve it.
TinaHashiRN said:The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the correction. That is slower than asserting, and it is the only version that survives being wrong.