labquiet_amy said:Follow-up: I read the paper rather than the summary and the qualifier I was missing was in the second paragraph of the results.
Same pattern here, and in the same order. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.
labquiet_amy said:Follow-up: I read the paper rather than the summary and the qualifier I was missing was in the second paragraph of the results.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked. Narrow it and it becomes tractable; leave it broad and the thread will produce nine confident and incompatible replies.
Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself. Four weeks is the usual minimum for anything pharmacological on this board, and two weeks of data has told you almost nothing.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View Resultsjosh_phd_bmore said:If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself.
Pushing back on josh_phd_bmore here. Pushing back on the anecdote-stacking. Twenty people reporting the same thing is twenty samples from the same self-selected pool, not twenty independent confirmations.
Happy to go further on any of that.