BethLabQueen said:The boring version of this is the one that works, and the boring version is: measure a baseline, change one variable, wait, measure again under the…
Bookmarking. The distinction being drawn above is the one nobody else makes. Taking it to my next appointment.
From the other side of the consultation, briefly. If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not. That is answerable; arguing about which sounds more plausible is not.
pat_auckland said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
Same pattern here, and in the same order. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View Resultspat_auckland said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions. Agreeing that something happens says nothing about whether it happens enough to act on.
The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself. Four weeks is the usual minimum for anything pharmacological on this board, and two weeks of data has told you almost nothing.