From the other side of the consultation, briefly. 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.
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.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.
traveltech_sara said:The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person.
Second this. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference Standardstraveltech_sara said:The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false. If nothing would look different, it is not a claim about the world and no amount of discussion will settle it.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
Moderator note: two posts asking for a source have been merged into one. Please search the thread before asking again. Tagging this one for the weekly digest.