Gardening on GLP-1 — my results so far

hank_denver said:

Correct, and worth adding that it is reversible.

Same pattern here, and in the same order.

hank_denver said:

Correct, and worth adding that it is reversible.

Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it. The narrow version usually has an answer; the broad version usually does not, and answering the broad one is how a thread stops being useful.

Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath. An edited-away mistake is invisible to the next person who makes it.

Following on from hank_denver — and this may be the naive question:

Was that from a primary source or from a summary of one?

raj_cambridge said:

Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.

This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. Pushing back on the anecdote-stacking. Twenty people reporting the same thing is twenty samples from the same self-selected pool, not twenty independent confirmations.