PharmacoVig_BOS said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
Thank you for spelling out the reasoning rather than just the conclusion.
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.
ingrid_STO said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
Mine went the same way, slower. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View Resultsingrid_STO said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
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.
Closing the loop on my own question.
Update — I was wrong in the opening post, specifically about the direction. Correcting it here rather than editing it away.