A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
How would you tell the difference between that and the alternative explanation?
Old thread, but it comes up first when you search for this, so it is worth updating. 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.
SleepDoc_PDX said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
That is right, and it stops being right at the edges. The general case is well behaved; the interesting cases in this thread are all at the boundary where the general case breaks.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsSleepDoc_PDX said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
That reframing is the part I needed. Adding it to my notes with a link back to this thread.
Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. Take it one variable at a time. Almost every unanswerable question in these threads is unanswerable because three things changed in the same fortnight, and no amount of subsequent argument can untangle them after the fact.