pat_auckland said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
Second this. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.
pat_auckland said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person. Both are real; they answer different questions and get quoted as if they were the same one.
Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.
Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. 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 same conditions. Nobody wants that answer and it is still the answer.
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 BiochemFollowing on from pat_auckland — and this may be the naive question:
How would you tell the difference between that and the alternative explanation?
Dr.PeteFamMed 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…
Pushing back on Dr.PeteFamMed 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.