Dr.PeteFamMed said:It helps to ask what evidence would change your mind before you look at any.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. 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.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. The boring version of this is the one that works, and the boring version is: measure a baseline, change one variable, wait, measure again under the same conditions. Nobody wants that answer and it is still the answer.
One thing that is still open after Dr.PeteFamMed’s answer:
Was that from a primary source or from a summary of one?
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsBethLabQueen said:The boring version of this is the one that works, and the boring version is: measure a baseline, change one variable, wait, measure again under the…
Pushing back on BethLabQueen here. Pushing back on the consensus forming here. Consistency is not the same as correctness, and a board that agrees with itself quickly is usually agreeing with the first person who sounded certain.
BethLabQueen said:The boring version of this is the one that works, and the boring version is: measure a baseline, change one variable, wait, measure again under the…
No disagreement, though the timescale matters more than the mechanism here. Most of what looks like a difference in kind turns out to be a difference in how long somebody waited.