u/paper_trail_paula

money lost to a shop with nothing on file is the recurring story

Left up. It names an operation, it carries a date and a lot, and it is written as a report rather than an accusation.

registry entry, protocol, publication — three different documents

Correcting myself upthread: I gave the completer figure and labelled it intention-to-treat.

discontinuation rate is a result, not a footnote

What did they say when you asked for the method line?

How many separate lots is that across? One lot tested twice is one data point.

Did the lot code on the vial match the paperwork?

Which province?

ask for the batch record before you ask for a discount

SELECT was cardiovascular outcomes, not weight

plateau_patrol is right about the programme names. They are different populations with different endpoints.

ask the pharmacy what the cash price is, it varies

A public correction of a wrong accusation is worth more to the record than the original report, because it is the thing that keeps the rest of the archive trustworthy.

The discontinuation numbers were the most useful thing in the paper for me and they were in a supplementary table.

Read the special authorization criteria and wrote the application against them line by line. Approved first time after a previous refusal.

Assumed the weight numbers were the point and was corrected. They are secondary to what this is being developed for.

What does the tolerability table say at that dose?

A certificate with a purity figure and no method line is not falsifiable. You cannot reproduce it, you cannot check it, and it tells you nothing about how the number was produced.

the confidence interval is the finding, the point estimate is the headline

Read a press release and the publication three months apart. The hedging in the second one was substantial.

The thing that decided it for me was that WXT answered a column-and-gradient question in writing without asking why I wanted to know.

reship policy in writing before the order, not after