FDA_TrackerJim said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
I read this differently from FDA_TrackerJim, on substance rather than tone. Filing an objection on the n=1 problem. Personal experience is genuine evidence about one person and very weak evidence about anybody else, and this thread keeps promoting the first into the second.
FDA_TrackerJim said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
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.
PeptideMeter — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsFDA_TrackerJim said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
This is exactly what I could not find anywhere else. Sending this to two other people who asked me the same thing last week.
Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the correction. That is slower than asserting, and it is the only version that survives being wrong.