Dr.EndoEP said:I did go to 2.4mg in the end, and the honest report is that it bought me less than the step before it and cost me two bad weeks.
This matches mine closely enough to be worth saying so out loud. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.
Dr.EndoEP said:I did go to 2.4mg in the end, and the honest report is that it bought me less than the step before it and cost me two bad weeks.
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.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.
The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason. In three months the reason is what you will have forgotten, and the reason is what makes the record worth having.
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 BiochemOne thing that is still open after Dr.EndoEP’s answer:
What the dose-response curve actually looks like above 1.7mg, because the trial means hide how few people account for the extra loss?
FDA_TrackerJim said:Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason.
Careful with the causal language. Two things moving together in a period when five things changed is not a mechanism, and stating it as one makes the thread less useful to somebody reading it later.