Dr.RheumBOS said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. 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.
Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself. Four weeks is the usual minimum for anything pharmacological on this board, and two weeks of data has told you almost nothing.
Following on from Dr.RheumBOS — and this may be the naive question:
Was that from a primary source or from a summary of one?
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference Standardsstefan_berlin said:If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself.
Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. The objection nobody has made: this only works if the measurement is doing what we assume it is doing, and that assumption has not been tested here.
stefan_berlin said:If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself.
Agreed, and the size of the effect matters as much as its existence. Something real and small gets treated here as though it were real and decisive.