Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. 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.
BiostatsBrad said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. 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.
The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. One practical note: write down what you did and when, before you need it. Reconstructing a timeline from memory three months later is how people end up unable to answer the one question that would have resolved it.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsModerator note: leaving this open. It is being argued well and the disagreement is the useful part. Thread quality here is what the rules are for. Keep it up.