Moderator note: leaving this open. It is being argued well and the disagreement is the useful part.
TrialTracker_MD 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.
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.
Old thread, but it comes up first when you search for this, so it is worth updating. Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a trend.
Trusted third-party HPLC & mass spectrometry analysis. Verify peptide purity with the lab the community relies on. Independent. Accurate. Transparent.
Verify Your PeptidesEst. 1998. The synthesis house behind the vials you send for testing. ISO 9001 and cGMP certified, 1,500+ staff, batch-specific COA with every order.
Browse GL BiochemFrom the other side of the consultation, briefly. Start from the measurement rather than the conclusion. Almost every disagreement here turns out to be two people measuring different things and comparing the numbers anyway.
Dr.PulmRoch said:Start from the measurement rather than the conclusion.
Can confirm. Same sequence, different timescale.