[REVIEW] Swiss Chems — need advice

rachel_ABQ said:

Most of what circulates confidently in this community traces back to one summary of one study, and the qualifier was dropped somewhere in the third…

Coming at rachel_ABQ’s question from a different direction. 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.

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.

A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:

What would you measure differently if you were starting again?

TrialTracker_MD said:

One practical note: write down what you did and when, before you need it.

Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. The counter-case has not been addressed. Somebody upthread described the situation that does not fit, and the thread moved on rather than engaging with it, which is the failure mode this board is supposed to avoid.

If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.

TrialTracker_MD said:

One practical note: write down what you did and when, before you need it.

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.