A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
How would you tell the difference between that and the alternative explanation?
Dr.PainCLE said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. I would resist the confidence. Half of what this board was certain about two years ago has since been quietly dropped, and nobody went back to correct the threads.
Dr.PainCLE said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
True, with the qualification that this is a self-selected group. The people for whom it did not work post less, and that shapes everything we think we know.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsDr.PainCLE said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
Thank you for spelling out the reasoning rather than just the conclusion. Adding it to my notes with a link back to this thread.
Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. 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.