VendorMark said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
All true, with one condition: that curve is for people who reached the dose on schedule. Anyone who slowed the ladder for tolerability is on a different, flatter curve, and comparing yourself with the published mean will make you feel like a non-responder when you are not.
Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. 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.
One thing that is still open after lucas_SP_BR’s answer:
How much of the between-person variation is pharmacokinetic and how much is just adherence measured badly?
Trusted third-party HPLC & mass spectrometry analysis. Verify peptide purity with the lab the community relies on. Independent. Accurate. Transparent.
Verify Your PeptidesEst. 1998. The synthesis house behind the vials you send for testing. ISO 9001 and cGMP certified, 1,500+ staff, batch-specific COA with every order.
Browse GL Biochemjason_paloalto said:If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way.
Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. The trial means are being read too generously in this thread. STEP populations were selected, supported, and titrated by protocol, and the real-world curves are consistently a few points worse. That difference is not noise, it is what happens when you remove the study infrastructure.
Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.
Moderator note: reminder that nothing in this thread is medical advice, and that clinical claims need a source. Report rather than reply if it drifts again.