Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. 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.
lucas_SP_BR said:Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.
lucas_SP_BR has the substance of this right. The condition it depends on is worth stating. Yes, and the corollary is less popular: if the reasoning holds, it also holds where it produces an answer we do not like.
lucas_SP_BR said:Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.
Thank you — that is the clearest version of this I have read, and I have read a lot of them. Taking it to my next appointment.
Janoshik Analytical — Independent Testing
Trusted third-party HPLC & mass spectrometry analysis. Verify peptide purity with the lab the community relies on. Independent. Accurate. Transparent.
Verify Your PeptidesGL Biochem (Shanghai) Ltd. — Direct Manufacturer
Est. 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 BiochemAdding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. It helps to ask what evidence would change your mind before you look at any. If nothing would, the discussion is not about evidence, and it is better to say so early than to spend nine posts discovering it.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
Moderator note: good thread. Keeping it here rather than moving it, because the question is general enough to be useful. Report rather than reply if it drifts again.