A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
How would you tell the difference between that and the alternative explanation?
wendy_avl said:Follow-up: I read the paper rather than the summary and the qualifier I was missing was in the second paragraph of the results.
Worth saying that the confident version of this is more useful to the person writing it than to the person reading it.
wendy_avl said:Follow-up: I read the paper rather than the summary and the qualifier I was missing was in the second paragraph of the results.
No disagreement, though it depends on where somebody is starting from, and this thread has been assuming a starting point nobody stated.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View Resultswendy_avl said:Follow-up: I read the paper rather than the summary and the qualifier I was missing was in the second paragraph of the results.
Saving this. It is the first explanation that did not require me to already understand it. Adding it to my notes with a link back to this thread.
Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. Start from the measurement rather than the conclusion. Almost every disagreement here turns out to be two people measuring different things and comparing the numbers anyway.