Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. It helps to ask what evidence would change your mind before you look at any. If nothing would, the discussion is not about evidence, and it is better to say so early than to spend nine posts discovering it.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person. Both are real; they answer different questions and get quoted as if they were the same one.
Dr.LipidDallas said:The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person.
Can confirm. Same sequence, different timescale. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsDr.LipidDallas said:The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. 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.