PeptideChemSF said:The boring version of this is the one that works, and the boring version is: measure a baseline, change one variable, wait, measure again under the…
Agreed, with the usual condition: that holds for the average and this board is a collection of individuals. A population claim and a personal prediction are different things and get quoted interchangeably.
PeptideChemSF said:The boring version of this is the one that works, and the boring version is: measure a baseline, change one variable, wait, measure again under the…
Bookmarking. The distinction being drawn above is the one nobody else makes.
Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. 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.
Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.
Trusted third-party HPLC & mass spectrometry analysis. Verify peptide purity with the lab the community relies on. Independent. Accurate. Transparent.
Verify Your PeptidesEst. 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 BiochemTinaHashiRN 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.
This is my experience too, for whatever a second data point is worth.
TinaHashiRN 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.
Coming at TinaHashiRN’s question from a different direction. The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked. Narrow it and it becomes tractable; leave it broad and the thread will produce nine confident and incompatible replies.