One concrete data point for the thread. 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 jim_asheville’s answer:
How people are distinguishing a supplier having a bad batch from a supplier on the way out?
Dr.NateNeph said:If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself.
I disagree that testing history is decisive. It tells you what a supplier did when they were being watched. Continuity of behaviour under stress — a late shipment, a failed test, a complaint — is more predictive than any run of good results.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsDr.NateNeph said:If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself.
Correct, and worth adding that it is reversible. Nothing being described here is a one-way door, which changes how cautious it is reasonable to be.
Reporting back.
Update. 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. Worth knowing rather than worth repeating.