TrialTracker_MD said:Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason.
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.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
TrialTracker_MD said:Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason.
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.
TrialTracker_MD said:Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason.
Thank you for spelling out the reasoning rather than just the conclusion. 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. There is a difference between no evidence and evidence of no effect, and this subject is one where the two get swapped freely in both directions.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
LibrarianMeg said:There is a difference between no evidence and evidence of no effect, and this subject is one where the two get swapped freely in both directions.
This matches mine closely enough to be worth saying so out loud.