GenomicsKate said:There is a difference between no evidence and evidence of no effect, and this subject is one where the two get swapped freely in both directions.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions. Agreeing that something happens says nothing about whether it happens enough to act on.
The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. One practical note: write down what you did and when, before you need it. Reconstructing a timeline from memory three months later is how people end up unable to answer the one question that would have resolved it.
Following on from GenomicsKate — 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 StandardsLabKate said:One practical note: write down what you did and when, before you need it.
Pushing back on LabKate here. This treats a plausible mechanism as a demonstrated one. Plausible is where you start looking, not where you stop.
LabKate said:One practical note: write down what you did and when, before you need it.
Agreeing with LabKate, and the qualification matters more than the agreement. Yes, and the corollary is less popular: if the reasoning holds, it also holds where it produces an answer we do not like.