labquiet_amy said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
Careful with the causal language. Two things moving together in a period when five things changed is not a mechanism, and stating it as one makes the thread less useful to somebody reading it later.
labquiet_amy said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
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.
labquiet_amy said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
This is exactly what I could not find anywhere else. Printing the relevant bit and taking it with me.
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsClinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. There is a difference between no evidence and evidence of no effect, and this subject is one where the two get swapped freely in both directions.
Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.
roxy_nash said:There is a difference between no evidence and evidence of no effect, and this subject is one where the two get swapped freely in both directions.
This is my experience too, for whatever a second data point is worth.