Following on from andrew_nyc — and this may be the naive question:
Was that from a primary source or from a summary of one?
Following on from andrew_nyc — and this may be the naive question:
Was that from a primary source or from a summary of one?
DataDave said:The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either.
Careful with the causal language. Two things moving together in a period when five things changed is not a mechanism, and stating it as one makes the thread less useful to somebody reading it later.
DataDave said:The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either.
Agreed, and the size of the effect matters as much as its existence. Something real and small gets treated here as though it were real and decisive.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsDataDave said:The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either.
Thank you — that is the clearest version of this I have read, and I have read a lot of them. Printing the relevant bit and taking it with me.
Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. It helps to ask what evidence would change your mind before you look at any. If nothing would, the discussion is not about evidence, and it is better to say so early than to spend nine posts discovering it.