tony_orlando said:The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked.
Fair, and it stops being fair at the extremes. The middle of the range is well understood; the ends are where the honest answer is that nobody knows.
Reporting back.
Update — I was wrong in the opening post, specifically about the direction. Correcting it here rather than editing it away.
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.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsDebRD_ATL said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
Adding a me-too, because a thread of one person's experience is not much use. Posting only so the count is not one.
DebRD_ATL said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. Order of operations matters more than any single choice here: establish a baseline, change one thing, wait long enough for it to express itself, then measure again under the same conditions.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.