From the other side of the consultation, briefly. If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not. That is answerable; arguing about which sounds more plausible is not.
Happy to go further on any of that.
Dr.LipidDallas said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
Adding a me-too, because a thread of one person's experience is not much use.
Dr.LipidDallas said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions. Agreeing that something happens says nothing about whether it happens enough to act on.
Happy to go further on any of that.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsOne concrete data point for the thread. If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself. Four weeks is the usual minimum for anything pharmacological on this board, and two weeks of data has told you almost nothing.
Closing the loop on my own question.
Following up because I said I would. I changed one thing, left everything else alone, and waited the full interval before looking. It resolved, and I cannot prove which half of that did it.