roxy_nash said:Reporting back with a partial result, because a partial result is still better than silence.
Pushing back on roxy_nash here. The objection nobody has made: this only works if the measurement is doing what we assume it is doing, and that assumption has not been tested here.
roxy_nash said:Reporting back with a partial result, because a partial result is still better than silence.
True, and it depends on a baseline nobody has stated. Without knowing where someone started, the same number can be an excellent result or a disappointing one.
roxy_nash said:Reporting back with a partial result, because a partial result is still better than silence.
Saving this. It is the first explanation that did not require me to already understand it.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsClinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person. Both are real; they answer different questions and get quoted as if they were the same one.
chris_chi24 said:The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person.
This is my experience too, for whatever a second data point is worth. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.