Dr.PulmRoch said:One practical note: write down what you did and when, before you need it.
Genuinely useful, thank you. I had the facts and not the framework.
Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. 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.
chris_chi24 said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
This is my experience too, for whatever a second data point is worth. Nothing to add that would improve it.
Trusted third-party HPLC & mass spectrometry analysis. Verify peptide purity with the lab the community relies on. Independent. Accurate. Transparent.
Verify Your PeptidesEst. 1998. The synthesis house behind the vials you send for testing. ISO 9001 and cGMP certified, 1,500+ staff, batch-specific COA with every order.
Browse GL Biochemchris_chi24 said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
Coming at chris_chi24’s question from a different direction. The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions. Agreeing that something happens says nothing about whether it happens enough to act on.
One concrete data point for the thread. For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine. Half the figures circulating in this community trace back to a secondary summary that dropped a qualifier.