Nov 20, 2025 at 1:59 AM#46
TrialTracker_MD said:Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a…
Worth saying that the confident version of this is more useful to the person writing it than to the person reading it.
13 11PharmHunterJen, TomTeleRx, DoseLogDan and 10 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
Nov 27, 2025 at 8:57 AM#47
OP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.
Update — I was wrong in the opening post, specifically about the direction. Correcting it here rather than editing it away.
14 12carl_compliance, DanielChem_CHI, marco_milano and 11 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
Dec 4, 2025 at 3:51 PM#48
TrialTracker_MD said:Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a…
That reframing is the part I needed.
15 13tommy_boulder, hyun_seoul, jim_asheville and 12 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsDec 11, 2025 at 10:41 PM#49
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.
Last edited: Dec 12, 2025 at 2:41 AM
16 14labquiet_amy, emily_PDX, Dr.SleepRoch and 13 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
Dec 19, 2025 at 5:26 AM#50
CarlaRPh_TPA said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
Mine went the same way, slower.
38 11RegAffairsDC, BiostatsBrad, PeptideSynthNJ and 35 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report