Dr.SleepRoch 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.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.
TomFromTexas said:Liver ultrasound comparison for liver and MASH: my hepatologist ordered serial ultrasounds to track NAFLD regression.
Bookmarking. The distinction being drawn above is the one nobody else makes. Sending this to two other people who asked me the same thing last week.
Dr.SleepRoch 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 read this differently from Dr.SleepRoch, on substance rather than tone. Pushing back on the anecdote-stacking. Twenty people reporting the same thing is twenty samples from the same self-selected pool, not twenty independent confirmations.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsOne concrete data point for the thread. Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a trend.