One thing that is still open after nick_newbie’s answer:
How would you tell the difference between that and the alternative explanation?
quinn_sf said:One practical note: write down what you did and when, before you need it.
Careful with the causal language. Two things moving together in a period when five things changed is not a mechanism, and stating it as one makes the thread less useful to somebody reading it later.
quinn_sf said:One practical note: write down what you did and when, before you need it.
Agreed, and the size of the effect matters as much as its existence. Something real and small gets treated here as though it were real and decisive.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View Resultsquinn_sf said:One practical note: write down what you did and when, before you need it.
Saving this. It is the first explanation that did not require me to already understand it. Taking it to my next appointment.
Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it. The narrow version usually has an answer; the broad version usually does not, and answering the broad one is how a thread stops being useful.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.