Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person. Both are real; they answer different questions and get quoted as if they were the same one.
Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. 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.
PedsEndoPhilly said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
Same experience, arrived at from the opposite direction.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsPedsEndoPhilly said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
Coming at PedsEndoPhilly’s question from a different direction. The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked. Narrow it and it becomes tractable; leave it broad and the thread will produce nine confident and incompatible replies.