lisa_labSD said:The boring version of this is the one that works, and the boring version is: measure a baseline, change one variable, wait, measure again under the…
That is right for the common case. Whether it is right for the case being asked about depends on a detail that has not been given.
lisa_labSD said:The boring version of this is the one that works, and the boring version is: measure a baseline, change one variable, wait, measure again under the…
This is exactly what I could not find anywhere else. Printing the relevant bit and taking it with me.
Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either. Those three things can all be true at once, and most arguments here are two people holding different parts of that.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View Resultsjulia.endo said:The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either.
Mine went the same way, slower. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.
julia.endo said:The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either.
Coming at julia.endo’s question from a different direction. Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the correction. That is slower than asserting, and it is the only version that survives being wrong.