HPLC_Greg said:If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself.
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. Filing an objection on the n=1 problem. Personal experience is genuine evidence about one person and very weak evidence about anybody else, and this thread keeps promoting the first into the second.
OP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.
Closing this out. What actually changed my mind was the point about waiting for a trend instead of reading a single measurement, which is embarrassing in hindsight and worth saying anyway.
HPLC_Greg said:If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself.
Saving this. It is the first explanation that did not require me to already understand it. Adding it to my notes with a link back to this thread.
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsFrom the other side of the consultation, briefly. 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.
Dr.BariatricHTX 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.
Second this.