paige_pharma said:Yes, and the corollary is less popular: if the reasoning holds, it also holds where it produces an answer we do not like.
Mine went the same way, slower.
paige_pharma said:Yes, and the corollary is less popular: if the reasoning holds, it also holds where it produces an answer we do not like.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. 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.
One concrete data point for the thread. Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath. An edited-away mistake is invisible to the next person who makes it.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsOne thing that is still open after paige_pharma’s answer:
What did you change at the same time, and can you separate the two now?
hank_denver said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
I read this differently from hank_denver, on substance rather than tone. Not convinced. The evidence being cited is consistent with the conclusion and also consistent with two other conclusions nobody has ruled out.