One thing that is still open after Dr.GastroMayo’s answer:
Was that from a primary source or from a summary of one?
wendy_avl said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. Filing an objection on the n=1 problem. Personal experience is genuine evidence about one person and very weak evidence about anybody else, and this thread keeps promoting the first into the second.
wendy_avl said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
True, and it depends on a baseline nobody has stated. Without knowing where someone started, the same number can be an excellent result or a disappointing one.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase 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 Biochemwendy_avl said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
That reframing is the part I needed. Printing the relevant bit and taking it with me.
Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. Start from the measurement rather than the conclusion. Almost every disagreement here turns out to be two people measuring different things and comparing the numbers anyway.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.