Dr.LipidDallas said:Reporting back for the archive rather than for the thread: I did the narrow version of what was suggested, gave it the full interval, and it settled.
Saving this. It is the first explanation that did not require me to already understand it. Printing the relevant bit and taking it with me.
Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. 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.
carl_compliance said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
Can confirm. Same sequence, different timescale. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference Standardscarl_compliance said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
Coming at carl_compliance’s question from a different direction. Most of what circulates confidently in this community traces back to one summary of one study, and the qualifier was dropped somewhere in the third retelling.
One concrete data point for the thread. Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look. It is a small discipline and it changes what you notice.