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.
Happy to go further on any of that.
A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
How would you tell the difference between that and the alternative explanation?
raj_cambridge 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 raj_cambridge, 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.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View Resultsraj_cambridge 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…
Agreed, and the size of the effect matters as much as its existence. Something real and small gets treated here as though it were real and decisive.
Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.
raj_cambridge 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…
That reframing is the part I needed.