anders_CPH said:One practical note: write down what you did and when, before you need it.
Genuinely useful, thank you. I had the facts and not the framework. Adding it to my notes with a link back to this thread.
Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. There is a difference between no evidence and evidence of no effect, and this subject is one where the two get swapped freely in both directions.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
Dr.PulmRoch said:There is a difference between no evidence and evidence of no effect, and this subject is one where the two get swapped freely in both directions.
Same pattern here, and in the same order. Posting only so the count is not one.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsDr.PulmRoch said:There is a difference between no evidence and evidence of no effect, and this subject is one where the two get swapped freely in both directions.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. 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.
Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine. Half the figures circulating in this community trace back to a secondary summary that dropped a qualifier.