andrew_nyc said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
Saving this. It is the first explanation that did not require me to already understand it. Adding it to my notes with a link back to this thread.
Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. It helps to say which part of this you are uncertain about. A precise question gets a precise answer; a general one gets everybody’s favourite anecdote.
Dr.AddMedPHL said:Most of what circulates confidently in this community traces back to one summary of one study, and the qualifier was dropped somewhere in the third…
I am going to disagree with the direction of travel here. The thread has converged on the tidiest answer rather than the best-supported one, and those are not the same thing.
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: a post naming a supplier has been edited. Discuss suppliers in the review sections, not here. Thread quality here is what the rules are for. Keep it up.