fiona_glasgow said:The answer turned out to depend on the detail I had left out of the opening post, which is a lesson about how to ask rather than about the subject.
Pushing back on fiona_glasgow here. The objection nobody has made: this only works if the measurement is doing what we assume it is doing, and that assumption has not been tested here.
fiona_glasgow said:The answer turned out to depend on the detail I had left out of the opening post, which is a lesson about how to ask rather than about the subject.
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.
fiona_glasgow said:The answer turned out to depend on the detail I had left out of the opening post, which is a lesson about how to ask rather than about the subject.
Thank you — that is the clearest version of this I have read, and I have read a lot of them.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsClinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either. Those three things can all be true at once, and most arguments here are two people holding different parts of that.
Dr.RenalNash said:The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either.
Second this.