pat_auckland said:Most of what circulates confidently in this community traces back to one summary of one study, and the qualifier was dropped somewhere in the third…
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not. That is answerable; arguing about which sounds more plausible is not.
One concrete data point for the thread. If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way. Most of the apparent contradictions in these threads dissolve at that step.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View Resultsbri_stats said:If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way.
Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. Not convinced. The evidence being cited is consistent with the conclusion and also consistent with two other conclusions nobody has ruled out.
bri_stats said:If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way.
Correct, and worth adding that it is reversible. Nothing being described here is a one-way door, which changes how cautious it is reasonable to be.