BariatricNurseD 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…
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false. If nothing would look different, it is not a claim about the world and no amount of discussion will settle it.
The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine. Half the figures circulating in this community trace back to a secondary summary that dropped a qualifier.
One thing that is still open after BariatricNurseD’s answer:
Did your prescriber agree with that reading, and if not what was their objection?
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsOld thread, but it comes up first when you search for this, so it is worth updating. Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason. In three months the reason is what you will have forgotten, and the reason is what makes the record worth having.
TirzTom 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, and worth adding that it is reversible. Nothing being described here is a one-way door, which changes how cautious it is reasonable to be.