Following on from andrew_nyc — and this may be the naive question:
Did your prescriber agree with that reading, and if not what was their objection?
ingrid_STO 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.
I do not accept the framing. The question has been narrowed to the version that has a tidy answer, and the part that was dropped is the part the OP actually asked about.
ingrid_STO 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.
Agreed, and the size of the effect matters as much as its existence. Something real and small gets treated here as though it were real and decisive.
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 Biochemingrid_STO 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.
Thank you for spelling out the reasoning rather than just the conclusion.
Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. 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.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.