Following on from claudia_zurich — and this may be the naive question:
How would you tell the difference between that and the alternative explanation?
lucas_SP_BR said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
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.
lucas_SP_BR said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
Fair, and it stops being fair at the extremes. The middle of the range is well understood; the ends are where the honest answer is that nobody knows.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View Resultslucas_SP_BR said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
Saving this. It is the first explanation that did not require me to already understand it. I will report back once I have actually tried it.
Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. 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.