TrialTracker_MD said:Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.
I read this differently from TrialTracker_MD, on substance rather than tone. This treats a plausible mechanism as a demonstrated one. Plausible is where you start looking, not where you stop.
Closing the loop on my own question.
Update: the thing I was blaming turned out not to be the cause. Leaving the original post as written rather than editing it, so the mistake stays visible for whoever searches this next.
TrialTracker_MD said:Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.
This is exactly what I could not find anywhere else. Adding it to my notes with a link back to this thread.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsAdding 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.
Happy to go further on any of that.
lisa_labSD said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
Same pattern here, and in the same order. Nothing to add that would improve it.