From the other side of the consultation, briefly. The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated. Those two sets overlap less than the confident tone of most write-ups suggests, and the second set is where nearly all the disagreement on this board comes from.
PedsEndoPhilly said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
This is my experience too, for whatever a second data point is worth. Posting only so the count is not one.
PedsEndoPhilly said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either. Those three things can all be true at once, and most arguments here are two people holding different parts of that.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsThe figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. 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.
One thing that is still open after PedsEndoPhilly’s answer:
How long did you give it before you decided it was working?