tony_orlando said:Reporting back with a partial result, because a partial result is still better than silence.
Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. Pushing back on the anecdote-stacking. Twenty people reporting the same thing is twenty samples from the same self-selected pool, not twenty independent confirmations.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
tony_orlando said:Reporting back with a partial result, because a partial result is still better than silence.
That holds where the measurement is reliable. Where it is noisy — and a lot of what gets tracked here is noisy — the same reasoning produces confident nonsense.
tony_orlando said:Reporting back with a partial result, because a partial result is still better than silence.
This is exactly what I could not find anywhere else. I will report back once I have actually tried it.
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. It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false. If nothing would look different, it is not a claim about the world and no amount of discussion will settle it.
Dr.EM_Chicago said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
This is my experience too, for whatever a second data point is worth. Posting only so the count is not one.