hank_denver said:Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason.
Genuinely useful, thank you. I had the facts and not the framework. Adding it to my notes with a link back to this thread.
From the other side of the consultation, briefly. It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false. If nothing would look different, it is not a claim about the world and no amount of discussion will settle it.
Happy to go further on any of that.
andrew_nyc said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
Same experience, arrived at from the opposite direction. Posting only so the count is not one.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View Resultsandrew_nyc said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
Coming at andrew_nyc’s question from a different direction. Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the correction. That is slower than asserting, and it is the only version that survives being wrong.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
Reporting back.
Update — my curve sits below the published mean and the explanation is that the trial arm had support I do not have. That was reassuring rather than otherwise.