jason_paloalto said:If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way.
Careful with the causal language. Two things moving together in a period when five things changed is not a mechanism, and stating it as one makes the thread less useful to somebody reading it later.
jason_paloalto said:If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way.
True, with the qualification that this is a self-selected group. The people for whom it did not work post less, and that shapes everything we think we know.
jason_paloalto said:If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way.
That reframing is the part I needed.
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. It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false. If nothing would look different, it is not a claim about the world and no amount of discussion will settle it.
OP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.
Closing this out. What actually changed my mind was the point about waiting for a trend instead of reading a single measurement, which is embarrassing in hindsight and worth saying anyway.