VanRx_Mike said:True, and it depends on a baseline nobody has stated.
Same experience, arrived at from the opposite direction. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.
VanRx_Mike said:True, and it depends on a baseline nobody has stated.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not. That is answerable; arguing about which sounds more plausible is not.
One concrete data point for the thread. 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.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsA narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
How would you tell the difference between that and the alternative explanation?
lucas_SP_BR said:If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself.
I read this differently from lucas_SP_BR, on substance rather than tone. Not convinced. The evidence being cited is consistent with the conclusion and also consistent with two other conclusions nobody has ruled out.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.