Dr.PainCLE said:The gap between trial results and real-world results is consistent and it is not fraud.
Right, and the exception is worth naming rather than left implied, because the exception is where people get into trouble.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
JessicaH_TX said:Agreed, and subgroup analyses deserve particular suspicion.
Thank you for spelling out the reasoning rather than just the conclusion. I will report back once I have actually tried it.
Dr.PainCLE said:The gap between trial results and real-world results is consistent and it is not fraud.
Pushing back on Dr.PainCLE here. I would add the less popular caveat: these trial populations under-represented several groups, older adults and the highest BMI categories among them. The results probably generalise, and "probably" should be stated as an assumption rather than dropped.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsAdding the numbers, since they settle part of this. One practical note: write down what you did and when, before you need it. Reconstructing a timeline from memory three months later is how people end up unable to answer the one question that would have resolved it.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.