stefan_berlin said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
Bookmarking. The distinction being drawn above is the one nobody else makes.
Reporting back.
Closing the loop. The answer turned out to depend on the detail I had left out of the opening post, which is a lesson about how to ask rather than about the subject.
pat_auckland said:The answer turned out to depend on the detail I had left out of the opening post, which is a lesson about how to ask rather than about the subject.
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 Resultspat_auckland said:The answer turned out to depend on the detail I had left out of the opening post, which is a lesson about how to ask rather than about the subject.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. 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.
Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. 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.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.