jason_paloalto said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
I am going to disagree with the direction of travel here. The thread has converged on the tidiest answer rather than the best-supported one, and those are not the same thing.
jason_paloalto said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
jason_paloalto has the substance of this right. The condition it depends on is worth stating. Yes, and the corollary is less popular: if the reasoning holds, it also holds where it produces an answer we do not like.
jason_paloalto said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
That reframing is the part I needed. Adding it to my notes with a link back to this thread.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsAdding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. 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.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
Dr.CardioMD said:The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either.
Second this.