dan_philly said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
Correct as far as it goes. The part it does not cover is what to do when the honest answer is "not enough data", which is more often than anyone likes.
dan_philly said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
Saving this. It is the first explanation that did not require me to already understand it. I will report back once I have actually tried it.
Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it. The narrow version usually has an answer; the broad version usually does not, and answering the broad one is how a thread stops being useful.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsDr.LeslieOBGYN said:Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.
This is my experience too, for whatever a second data point is worth.
Dr.LeslieOBGYN said:Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. Take it one variable at a time. Almost every unanswerable question in these threads is unanswerable because three things changed in the same fortnight, and no amount of subsequent argument can untangle them after the fact.