A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
Did your prescriber agree with that reading, and if not what was their objection?
roxy_nash said:Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.
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.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
roxy_nash said:Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.
Agreed, with the usual condition: that holds for the average and this board is a collection of individuals. A population claim and a personal prediction are different things and get quoted interchangeably.
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 Biochemroxy_nash said:Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.
This answered a question I did not know how to ask. I will report back once I have actually tried it.
From the other side of the consultation, briefly. It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false. If nothing would look different, it is not a claim about the world and no amount of discussion will settle it.