Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated. Those two sets overlap less than the confident tone of most write-ups suggests, and the second set is where nearly all the disagreement on this board comes from.
PedsEndoPhilly said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
I read this differently from PedsEndoPhilly, on substance rather than tone. Pushing back on the anecdote-stacking. Twenty people reporting the same thing is twenty samples from the same self-selected pool, not twenty independent confirmations.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.
PedsEndoPhilly said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
Agreed, with the usual condition: that holds for the average and this board is a collection of individuals. A population claim and a personal prediction are different things and get quoted interchangeably.
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsPedsEndoPhilly said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
Saving this. It is the first explanation that did not require me to already understand it. I will report back once I have actually tried it.