hans_munich said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
This is my experience too, for whatever a second data point is worth. Nothing to add that would improve it.
hans_munich said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
Coming at hans_munich’s question from a different direction. Order of operations matters more than any single choice here: establish a baseline, change one thing, wait long enough for it to express itself, then measure again under the same conditions.
Worth separating that from the trial evidence, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.
The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath. An edited-away mistake is invisible to the next person who makes it.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsDr.PulmRoch said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
Pushing back on Dr.PulmRoch here. I think the framing smuggles in the conclusion. Ask it the other way round and the obvious answer reverses, which usually means the question is doing the work.