MikeFit_NJ said:I changed one thing, left everything else alone, and waited the full interval before looking.
Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. Filing an objection on the n=1 problem. Personal experience is genuine evidence about one person and very weak evidence about anybody else, and this thread keeps promoting the first into the second.
MikeFit_NJ said:I changed one thing, left everything else alone, and waited the full interval before looking.
No disagreement, though the timescale matters more than the mechanism here. Most of what looks like a difference in kind turns out to be a difference in how long somebody waited.
MikeFit_NJ said:I changed one thing, left everything else alone, and waited the full interval before looking.
Thank you for spelling out the reasoning rather than just the conclusion. Printing the relevant bit and taking it with me.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsAdding 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.
roxy_nash said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
This is my experience too, for whatever a second data point is worth. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.