dan_philly 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.
Agreeing with dan_philly, and the qualification matters more than the agreement. Yes, and the corollary is less popular: if the reasoning holds, it also holds where it produces an answer we do not like.
Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.
dan_philly 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.
Saving this. It is the first explanation that did not require me to already understand it.
Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated. Those two sets overlap less than the confident tone of most write-ups suggests, and the second set is where nearly all the disagreement on this board comes from.
Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsModerator note: reminder that nothing in this thread is medical advice, and that clinical claims need a source.
pete_nash said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
Reprising the part of this that the last few posts have moved away from:
Worth adding that the tablet is taken daily, so a missed dose costs far less than a missed weekly injection. That is a genuine advantage nobody lists.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.