PharmacoVig_BOS said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
This answered a question I did not know how to ask. Adding it to my notes with a link back to this thread.
Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. 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.
roxy_nash said:The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked.
This is my experience too, for whatever a second data point is worth. Posting only so the count is not one.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View Resultsroxy_nash said:The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. 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. 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.