Following on from james_edin — and this may be the naive question:
Was that from a primary source or from a summary of one?
Following on from james_edin — and this may be the naive question:
Was that from a primary source or from a summary of one?
maya_sedona said:There is a difference between no evidence and evidence of no effect, and this subject is one where the two get swapped freely in both directions.
I read this differently. The confidence in this thread is running ahead of the evidence, and I would rather the uncertainty were stated than smoothed over because it is unsatisfying.
maya_sedona said:There is a difference between no evidence and evidence of no effect, and this subject is one where the two get swapped freely in both directions.
Agreed on the substance. I would put less weight on the timescale, because two months of anything is not enough to distinguish a trend from a wobble.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View Resultsmaya_sedona said:There is a difference between no evidence and evidence of no effect, and this subject is one where the two get swapped freely in both directions.
This is exactly what I could not find anywhere else. Sending this to two other people who asked me the same thing last week.
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.