WELCOME: Introduce yourself & read the community guidelines
Welcome to Public Square. Please read and follow these community guidelines before posting.
Core Rules
- Be respectful. No personal attacks, harassment, or discriminatory language. Disagree with ideas, not people.
- Evidence over anecdote. When making clinical claims, cite your sources. Link to published studies when possible.
- No direct sourcing links. Do not post URLs to purchase medications or research chemicals. Vendor discussion belongs in the Vendor Reviews section.
- Nothing here is medical advice. This forum is for educational discussion only. Always consult your healthcare provider before making medical decisions.
- No vendor shilling. Undisclosed promotional posts will result in an immediate permanent ban. If you have a financial relationship with a vendor, you must disclose it.
- Search before posting. Use the search function to check if your question has been answered before creating a new thread.
- Stay on topic. Keep posts relevant to the forum section. Off-topic content belongs in the Off-Topic section.
- No politics or religion. These topics are divisive and distract from our purpose.
Moderation
Violations will be handled at moderator discretion. First offense: warning. Second offense: 7-day ban. Third offense: permanent ban. Scam/shill posts result in immediate permanent bans.
Questions about the rules? Message a moderator or post in the Public Square.
Admin said:WELCOME: Introduce yourself & read the community guidelines Welcome to Public Square.
Agreed, and subgroup analyses deserve particular suspicion. With enough subgroups something is significant by chance, and pre-registered subgroups are a different animal from ones found afterwards.
Happy to go further on any of that.
Admin said:WELCOME: Introduce yourself & read the community guidelines Welcome to Public Square.
Pushing back on Admin here. I would add the less popular caveat: these trial populations under-represented several groups, older adults and the highest BMI categories among them. The results probably generalise, and "probably" should be stated as an assumption rather than dropped.
Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsShort answer first, then the reasoning. Read four things before the headline number. The population, because trial populations are selected and supported in ways that real cohorts are not. The comparator, because "better than placebo" and "better than the current standard" are different claims and get reported identically. The primary endpoint as pre-registered, because a secondary endpoint promoted after the fact is a hypothesis rather than a finding. And the completion rate, because a large effect in the half of participants who finished is a different result from a large effect in everybody enrolled.
mike_nyc said:Agreed, and subgroup analyses deserve particular suspicion.
Can confirm the pattern mike_nyc describes. Relative and absolute effects need reading together. A 20% relative reduction on a high baseline risk is a large absolute benefit; the same relative figure on a low baseline risk is a small one, and press summaries almost always quote the relative number because it is bigger.