One thing that is still open after anna.melb_AU’s answer:
Was that from a primary source or from a summary of one?
Dr.RheumBOS said:What actually changed my mind was the point about waiting for a trend instead of reading a single measurement, which is embarrassing in hindsight and…
I read this differently. The confidence in this thread is running ahead of the evidence, and I would rather the uncertainty were stated than smoothed over because it is unsatisfying.
Dr.RheumBOS said:What actually changed my mind was the point about waiting for a trend instead of reading a single measurement, which is embarrassing in hindsight and…
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.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
Trusted third-party HPLC & mass spectrometry analysis. Verify peptide purity with the lab the community relies on. Independent. Accurate. Transparent.
Verify Your PeptidesEst. 1998. The synthesis house behind the vials you send for testing. ISO 9001 and cGMP certified, 1,500+ staff, batch-specific COA with every order.
Browse GL BiochemDr.RheumBOS said:What actually changed my mind was the point about waiting for a trend instead of reading a single measurement, which is embarrassing in hindsight and…
Genuinely useful, thank you. I had the facts and not the framework.
From the other side of the consultation, briefly. 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.