Dr.AddMedPHL said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
Saving this. It is the first explanation that did not require me to already understand it. Adding it to my notes with a link back to this thread.
From the other side of the consultation, briefly. 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.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
TrialNerd_Beth said:The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person.
This matches mine closely enough to be worth saying so out loud. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsTrialNerd_Beth said:The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person.
Coming at TrialNerd_Beth’s question from a different direction. Start from the measurement rather than the conclusion. Almost every disagreement here turns out to be two people measuring different things and comparing the numbers anyway.
Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a trend.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.