NeuroNate said:Follow-up: I read the paper rather than the summary and the qualifier I was missing was in the second paragraph of the results.
I read this differently from NeuroNate, on substance rather than tone. I think the framing smuggles in the conclusion. Ask it the other way round and the obvious answer reverses, which usually means the question is doing the work.
NeuroNate said:Follow-up: I read the paper rather than the summary and the qualifier I was missing was in the second paragraph of the results.
Correct, and worth adding that it is reversible. Nothing being described here is a one-way door, which changes how cautious it is reasonable to be.
Worth separating that from the trial evidence, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.
NeuroNate said:Follow-up: I read the paper rather than the summary and the qualifier I was missing was in the second paragraph of the results.
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.
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsFrom the other side of the consultation, briefly. It helps to say which part of this you are uncertain about. A precise question gets a precise answer; a general one gets everybody’s favourite anecdote.
VanRx_Mike said:It helps to say which part of this you are uncertain about.
Second this. Nothing to add that would improve it.