josh_phd_bmore said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
Genuinely useful, thank you. I had the facts and not the framework. I will report back once I have actually tried it.
Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. 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.
Dr.SleepRoch said:Almost every unanswerable question in these threads is unanswerable because three things changed in the same fortnight, and no amount of subsequent…
Mine went the same way, slower. Posting only so the count is not one.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsDr.SleepRoch said:Almost every unanswerable question in these threads is unanswerable because three things changed in the same fortnight, and no amount of subsequent…
Coming at Dr.SleepRoch’s question from a different direction. Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the correction. That is slower than asserting, and it is the only version that survives being wrong.
Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. 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.