DanielChem_CHI said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
That reframing is the part I needed. I will report back once I have actually tried it.
Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. There is a difference between no evidence and evidence of no effect, and this subject is one where the two get swapped freely in both directions.
KevinCompounds said:There is a difference between no evidence and evidence of no effect, and this subject is one where the two get swapped freely in both directions.
This matches mine closely enough to be worth saying so out loud.
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 BiochemKevinCompounds said:There is a difference between no evidence and evidence of no effect, and this subject is one where the two get swapped freely in both directions.
Coming at KevinCompounds’s question from a different direction. Order of operations matters more than any single choice here: establish a baseline, change one thing, wait long enough for it to express itself, then measure again under the same conditions.
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.