Asked to pay by a method with no recourse, by a supplier I had used twice before without being asked, which is what made me stop.
The bit I cannot resolve on my own is how people are thinking about the trade-off between reversibility and privacy, because you cannot have both.
Not looking for reassurance. Looking for the part I have got wrong.
Taking the question as asked, rather than the general version of it. 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.
KevinCompounds said:The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either.
That holds where the measurement is reliable. Where it is noisy — and a lot of what gets tracked here is noisy — the same reasoning produces confident nonsense.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsMarkLI_maint said:Asked to pay by a method with no recourse, by a supplier I had used twice before without being asked, which is what made me stop.
Second this.
Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. It helps to ask what evidence would change your mind before you look at any. If nothing would, the discussion is not about evidence, and it is better to say so early than to spend nine posts discovering it.