Following on from Dr.PulmRoch — and this may be the naive question:
How would you tell the difference between that and the alternative explanation?
HealthEcon_DC 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.
I read this differently. The confidence in this thread is running ahead of the evidence, and I would rather the uncertainty were stated than smoothed over because it is unsatisfying.
HealthEcon_DC 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.
Correct as far as it goes. The part it does not cover is what to do when the honest answer is "not enough data", which is more often than anyone likes.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsHealthEcon_DC 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.
Bookmarking. The distinction being drawn above is the one nobody else makes. Adding it to my notes with a link back to this thread.
Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions. Agreeing that something happens says nothing about whether it happens enough to act on.