paul_denver said:Agreed, with the usual condition: that holds for the average and this board is a collection of individuals.
Adding a me-too, because a thread of one person's experience is not much use. Nothing to add that would improve it.
paul_denver said:Agreed, with the usual condition: that holds for the average and this board is a collection of individuals.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. 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.
The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number. A figure without its method cannot be checked, and an unchecked figure is how this community accumulates folklore.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsFollowing on from paul_denver — and this may be the naive question:
Did your prescriber agree with that reading, and if not what was their objection?
Dr.GutHealth said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. 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.