PeptideSynthNJ said:Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a…
True, with the qualification that this is a self-selected group. The people for whom it did not work post less, and that shapes everything we think we know.
PeptideSynthNJ said:Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a…
This is exactly what I could not find anywhere else. Printing the relevant bit and taking it with me.
Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. 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.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsFound this through search years later and it is still the best discussion of the question, so adding one thing. Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look. It is a small discipline and it changes what you notice.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.
LipidDoc_ATL said: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…
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions. Agreeing that something happens says nothing about whether it happens enough to act on.