PeptideChemSF said:Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a…
No disagreement, though it depends on where somebody is starting from, and this thread has been assuming a starting point nobody stated.
PeptideChemSF said:Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a…
Thank you for spelling out the reasoning rather than just the conclusion. I will report back once I have actually tried it.
Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false. If nothing would look different, it is not a claim about the world and no amount of discussion will settle it.
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsDr.SleepRoch said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
Can confirm. Same sequence, different timescale.
Dr.SleepRoch said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
Coming at Dr.SleepRoch’s question from a different direction. It helps to ask what evidence would change your mind before you look at any. If nothing would, the discussion is not about evidence, and it is better to say so early than to spend nine posts discovering it.