GGPeps switched to new vial design — looking for input

wendy_avl said:

The boring version of this is the one that works, and the boring version is: measure a baseline, change one variable, wait, measure again under the…

Bookmarking. The distinction being drawn above is the one nobody else makes. 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.

anna.melb_AU said:

It helps to ask what evidence would change your mind before you look at any.

This is my experience too, for whatever a second data point is worth.

anna.melb_AU said:

It helps to ask what evidence would change your mind before you look at any.

There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. 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.

Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. 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.

Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.