hannah_MT said:No disagreement, though the timescale matters more than the mechanism here.
Second this.
hannah_MT said:No disagreement, though the timescale matters more than the mechanism here.
Second this.
hannah_MT said:No disagreement, though the timescale matters more than the mechanism here.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. 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.
The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a trend.
Trusted third-party HPLC & mass spectrometry analysis. Verify peptide purity with the lab the community relies on. Independent. Accurate. Transparent.
Verify Your PeptidesEst. 1998. The synthesis house behind the vials you send for testing. ISO 9001 and cGMP certified, 1,500+ staff, batch-specific COA with every order.
Browse GL BiochemA narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
Was that from a primary source or from a summary of one?
LabKate said:Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a…
I read this differently from LabKate, on substance rather than tone. 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.