Following on from Dr.RheumBOS — and this may be the naive question:
What a vetting checklist should actually contain, as opposed to a list of things that are easy to fake?
RegAffairsDC said:There is a difference between no evidence and evidence of no effect, and this subject is one where the two get swapped freely in both directions.
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. Pushing back on the anecdote-stacking. Twenty people reporting the same thing is twenty samples from the same self-selected pool, not twenty independent confirmations.
RegAffairsDC said:There is a difference between no evidence and evidence of no effect, and this subject is one where the two get swapped freely in both directions.
Agreed, and one caution: a single measurement is not a measurement. Anything that moves day to day needs a trend before it means anything at all.
Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.
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 BiochemRegAffairsDC said:There is a difference between no evidence and evidence of no effect, and this subject is one where the two get swapped freely in both directions.
This is exactly what I could not find anywhere else.
Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. Order of operations matters more than any single choice here: establish a baseline, change one thing, wait long enough for it to express itself, then measure again under the same conditions.