paige_pharma said:It helps to ask what evidence would change your mind before you look at any.
This matches mine closely enough to be worth saying so out loud. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.
paige_pharma said:It helps to ask what evidence would change your mind before you look at any.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false. If nothing would look different, it is not a claim about the world and no amount of discussion will settle it.
Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. Worth stating the units and the reference range whenever you post a number here. A large fraction of the apparent disagreement in these threads is two people using different units and both being right.
Worth separating that from cost and coverage, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsFollowing on from paige_pharma — and this may be the naive question:
Was that from a primary source or from a summary of one?
raj_cambridge said:Worth stating the units and the reference range whenever you post a number here.
Pushing back on raj_cambridge here. This treats a plausible mechanism as a demonstrated one. Plausible is where you start looking, not where you stop.