BethLabQueen said:One practical note: write down what you did and when, before you need it.
Bookmarking. The distinction being drawn above is the one nobody else makes.
Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it. The narrow version usually has an answer; the broad version usually does not, and answering the broad one is how a thread stops being useful.
james_edin said:Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.
Second this. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View Resultsjames_edin said:Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. 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.
Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine. Half the figures circulating in this community trace back to a secondary summary that dropped a qualifier.