dave_SLC said:If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way.
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.
dave_SLC said:If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way.
Agreed, and the size of the effect matters as much as its existence. Something real and small gets treated here as though it were real and decisive.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.
dave_SLC said:If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way.
Bookmarking. The distinction being drawn above is the one nobody else makes.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsClinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either. Those three things can all be true at once, and most arguments here are two people holding different parts of that.
Old thread, but it comes up first when you search for this, so it is worth updating. Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath. An edited-away mistake is invisible to the next person who makes it.