One thing that is still open after Dr.RheumBOS’s answer:
How long did you give it before you decided it was working?
Found this through search years later and it is still the best discussion of the question, so adding one thing. If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way. Most of the apparent contradictions in these threads dissolve at that step.
Dr.RaviCardio said:Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a…
No disagreement, though it depends on where somebody is starting from, and this thread has been assuming a starting point nobody stated.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsDr.RaviCardio said:Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a…
Saving this. It is the first explanation that did not require me to already understand it. Printing the relevant bit and taking it with me.
From the other side of the consultation, briefly. If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not. That is answerable; arguing about which sounds more plausible is not.