Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. 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.
Following on from emma_london — and this may be the naive question:
Did your prescriber agree with that reading, and if not what was their objection?
Dr.PainCLE said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
Pushing back on Dr.PainCLE here. Not convinced. The evidence being cited is consistent with the conclusion and also consistent with two other conclusions nobody has ruled out.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsDr.PainCLE said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
Correct as far as it goes. The part it does not cover is what to do when the honest answer is "not enough data", which is more often than anyone likes.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
Moderator note: good thread. Keeping it here rather than moving it, because the question is general enough to be useful. Report rather than reply if it drifts again.