anders_CPH said:The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person.
Coming at anders_CPH’s question from a different direction. Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the correction. That is slower than asserting, and it is the only version that survives being wrong.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself. Four weeks is the usual minimum for anything pharmacological on this board, and two weeks of data has told you almost nothing.
Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.
A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
How long did you give it before you decided it was working?
Janoshik Analytical — Independent Testing
Trusted third-party HPLC & mass spectrometry analysis. Verify peptide purity with the lab the community relies on. Independent. Accurate. Transparent.
Verify Your PeptidesGL Biochem (Shanghai) Ltd. — Direct Manufacturer
Est. 1998. The synthesis house behind the vials you send for testing. ISO 9001 and cGMP certified, 1,500+ staff, batch-specific COA with every order.
Browse GL BiochemDanielChem_CHI said:If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself.
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.
DanielChem_CHI said:If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself.
That is right, and it stops being right at the edges. The general case is well behaved; the interesting cases in this thread are all at the boundary where the general case breaks.