jason_paloalto said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
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.
jason_paloalto said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
Right, and the exception is worth naming rather than left implied, because the exception is where people get into trouble.
jason_paloalto said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
Bookmarking. The distinction being drawn above is the one nobody else makes.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsAdding 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.
Happy to go further on any of that.
Dr.SurgeonPGH said:The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either.
Can confirm. Same sequence, different timescale. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.