Dr.LeslieOBGYN said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
Second this.
Dr.LeslieOBGYN said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
Second this.
Dr.LeslieOBGYN said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
Coming at Dr.LeslieOBGYN’s question from a different direction. The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either. Those three things can all be true at once, and most arguments here are two people holding different parts of that.
The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look. It is a small discipline and it changes what you notice.
Trusted third-party HPLC & mass spectrometry analysis. Verify peptide purity with the lab the community relies on. Independent. Accurate. Transparent.
Verify Your PeptidesEst. 1998. The synthesis house behind the vials you send for testing. ISO 9001 and cGMP certified, 1,500+ staff, batch-specific COA with every order.
Browse GL BiochemA narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
How would you tell the difference between that and the alternative explanation?
TirzTom said:Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. Filing an objection on the n=1 problem. Personal experience is genuine evidence about one person and very weak evidence about anybody else, and this thread keeps promoting the first into the second.