FDA_TrackerJim said:Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.
I read this differently from FDA_TrackerJim, on substance rather than tone. I would resist the confidence. Half of what this board was certain about two years ago has since been quietly dropped, and nobody went back to correct the threads.
FDA_TrackerJim said:Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.
That is correct as far as it goes, and here is where it stops going. Yes, and the corollary is less popular: if the reasoning holds, it also holds where it produces an answer we do not like.
FDA_TrackerJim said:Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.
Saving this. It is the first explanation that did not require me to already understand it.
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsAdding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions. Agreeing that something happens says nothing about whether it happens enough to act on.
Dr.SportsMedIN said:The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions.
Can confirm. Same sequence, different timescale.