BiostatsBrad said:Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.
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.
Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.
BiostatsBrad said:Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.
That reframing is the part I needed. Sending this to two other people who asked me the same thing last week.
From the other side of the consultation, briefly. The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked. Narrow it and it becomes tractable; leave it broad and the thread will produce nine confident and incompatible replies.
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsEndoResFellow said:The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked.
Can confirm. Same sequence, different timescale. Posting only so the count is not one.
EndoResFellow said:The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. 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.