PedsEndoPhilly said:The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person.
No disagreement, though it depends on where somebody is starting from, and this thread has been assuming a starting point nobody stated.
hannah_MT said:Agreed, with a caveat about community reputation: it is a lagging indicator.
This answered a question I did not know how to ask. Taking it to my next appointment.
PedsEndoPhilly said:The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person.
Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. Not convinced. The evidence being cited is consistent with the conclusion and also consistent with two other conclusions nobody has ruled out.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsAdding the numbers, since they settle part of this. 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.
Moderator note: good thread. Keeping it here rather than moving it, because the question is general enough to be useful. Thread quality here is what the rules are for. Keep it up.