EndoResFellow said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
Same experience, arrived at from the opposite direction.
One thing that is still open after julia.endo’s answer:
How would you tell the difference between that and the alternative explanation?
NicoleRaleigh 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 consensus forming here. Consistency is not the same as correctness, and a board that agrees with itself quickly is usually agreeing with the first person who sounded certain.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsNicoleRaleigh said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
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.
Moderator note: reminder that nothing in this thread is medical advice, and that clinical claims need a source. Tagging this one for the weekly digest.