carl_compliance said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
Agreed, and one caution: a single measurement is not a measurement. Anything that moves day to day needs a trend before it means anything at all.
sean_dublin said:No disagreement, though the timescale matters more than the mechanism here.
This answered a question I did not know how to ask. Taking it to my next appointment.
carl_compliance said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
Pushing back on carl_compliance here. I think the framing smuggles in the conclusion. Ask it the other way round and the obvious answer reverses, which usually means the question is doing the work.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsAdding the numbers, since they settle part of this. 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.
Moderator note: leaving this open. It is being argued well and the disagreement is the useful part. Tagging this one for the weekly digest.